Tell Me :
Talk
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: paul mccarney- most over-rated ever
Posted by:
Shawn20
()
Date: November 22, 2005 23:49
To Charles:
I saw McCartney and the Stones in the same arenea (Tampa) and McCartney's show was superb. There is no way even a casual Beatle fan can see his show and not be amazed. I promise you!
I saw McCartney and the Stones in the same arenea (Tampa) and McCartney's show was superb. There is no way even a casual Beatle fan can see his show and not be amazed. I promise you!
Re: paul mccarney- most over-rated ever
Posted by:
Charles
()
Date: November 22, 2005 23:53
Hello Shawn20,
The jury is still out on whether I will make it out there tonight.
Charles Baudelaire
1821-1867
The jury is still out on whether I will make it out there tonight.
Charles Baudelaire
1821-1867
Re: paul mccarney- most over-rated ever
Posted by:
black n blue
()
Date: November 23, 2005 01:41
Like the stones don't have crap in the cataloge.
Re: paul mccarney- most over-rated ever
Posted by:
Niklas
()
Date: November 23, 2005 01:44
J.J.Flash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> what has he really done since the beatles broke
> up? very small success with wings, then a 15 year
> lull. I think chapman shot the wrong beatle!
A comment like this should result in exclusion from this board. Lower than lowest. JERK!
-------------------------------------------------------
> what has he really done since the beatles broke
> up? very small success with wings, then a 15 year
> lull. I think chapman shot the wrong beatle!
A comment like this should result in exclusion from this board. Lower than lowest. JERK!
Re: paul mccarney- most over-rated ever
Posted by:
J.J.Flash
()
Date: November 23, 2005 01:50
niklas wrote:
>A comment like this should result in exclusion from this board. Lower than lowest. JERK
oh sorry, i didn't know u were a relative of the deceased. it was said tongue in cheek to piss off ferrante 9(who always WRITES IN CAPS) if u can't take it in stride, then u have the problem.
>A comment like this should result in exclusion from this board. Lower than lowest. JERK
oh sorry, i didn't know u were a relative of the deceased. it was said tongue in cheek to piss off ferrante 9(who always WRITES IN CAPS) if u can't take it in stride, then u have the problem.
Re: paul mccarney- most over-rated ever
Posted by:
Niklas
()
Date: November 23, 2005 01:53
A McCartney show is a cozy nostalgic popshow, where he performs about 40 song ranging from the early 60s til 2005. It's not a rock show like The Stones does, but it's still high class performance and show from one of the greatest composers in the world. And remember, The Beatles and The Stones have always been friends.
Re: paul mccarney- most over-rated ever
Posted by:
tomstones
()
Date: November 23, 2005 01:54
J.J.Flash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> what has he really done since the beatles broke
> up? very small success with wings, then a 15 year
> lull. I think chapman shot the wrong beatle!
This is unbelievable. I can´t believe I share the same love for the Stones with people like this.
-------------------------------------------------------
> what has he really done since the beatles broke
> up? very small success with wings, then a 15 year
> lull. I think chapman shot the wrong beatle!
This is unbelievable. I can´t believe I share the same love for the Stones with people like this.
Re: paul mccarney- most over-rated ever
Posted by:
goinhome
()
Date: November 23, 2005 02:03
I saw Paul in Portland 3 nights after the Stones hit town earlier this month and the difference in the quality and energy of two shows were night and day. McCartney's set seemed to consist largely of watered-down, uninspired 3 minute versions of all the oldies but goodies. He put noticably more effort into some of his new songs, but I left the show wishing I had saved my pennies for another Stones show and listened to Abbey Road or something on my home stereo instead. The Stones show three nights earlier was one of the most thrilling I have seen since my first shows on the Steel Wheels tour, and the thought never crossed my mind once that I was seeing an "oldies" show.
Re: paul mccarney- most over-rated ever
Posted by:
Mr.D
()
Date: November 23, 2005 02:08
Do you people stay up nights thinking up stupid things to post? Look at 90% of the posts on this board...a bunch on moronic nonsense! LOL
Re: paul mccarney- most over-rated ever
Posted by:
Niklas
()
Date: November 23, 2005 02:15
J.J.Flash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> niklas wrote:
>
>
> >A comment like this should result in exclusion
> from this board. Lower than lowest. JERK
>
>
> oh sorry, i didn't know u were a relative of the
> deceased. it was said tongue in cheek to piss off
> ferrante 9(who always WRITES IN CAPS) if u can't
> take it in stride, then u have the problem.
Sorry Sir, I'm just trying to act like a normal human being, with some sort of respect for a great musician who in fact got shot dead by a maniac. In my opinion jokes and crap talk about that is disgraceful and plain stupid, and I'm happy to see that I'm not alone thinking that. If anyone conciders that to be my problem, then I'll gladly deal with that.
-------------------------------------------------------
> niklas wrote:
>
>
> >A comment like this should result in exclusion
> from this board. Lower than lowest. JERK
>
>
> oh sorry, i didn't know u were a relative of the
> deceased. it was said tongue in cheek to piss off
> ferrante 9(who always WRITES IN CAPS) if u can't
> take it in stride, then u have the problem.
Sorry Sir, I'm just trying to act like a normal human being, with some sort of respect for a great musician who in fact got shot dead by a maniac. In my opinion jokes and crap talk about that is disgraceful and plain stupid, and I'm happy to see that I'm not alone thinking that. If anyone conciders that to be my problem, then I'll gladly deal with that.
Re: paul mccarney- most over-rated ever
Posted by:
J.J.Flash
()
Date: November 23, 2005 02:26
niklas wrote:
>Sorry Sir
i accept ur apology.
>Sorry Sir
i accept ur apology.
Re: paul mccarney- most over-rated ever
Posted by:
virgil
()
Date: November 23, 2005 02:52
The Stones Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This subject is so tedious and utterly stupid, so
> in order to make it a helluva lot more interesting
> I'll post a few pics of Meg White. Here we go.
> Enjoy!!!
>
>
Who's this Slut.
-------------------------------------------------------
> This subject is so tedious and utterly stupid, so
> in order to make it a helluva lot more interesting
> I'll post a few pics of Meg White. Here we go.
> Enjoy!!!
>
>
Who's this Slut.
Re: paul mccarney- most over-rated ever
Posted by:
ferrante9
()
Date: November 23, 2005 05:56
EVEN STONES FANS AGREE THAT MACCA SHOWS IS A LOT BETTER.
NUFF SAID!!!
NUFF SAID!!!
Re: paul mccarney- most over-rated ever
Posted by:
BornOnTheBayou
()
Date: November 23, 2005 06:41
J.J.Flash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> what has he really done since the beatles broke
> up? very small success with wings, then a 15 year
> lull. I think chapman shot the wrong beatle!
JJ... I'd be very curious as to WHICH BANDS have impressed you over the past 30 years besides the Stones... anyone ?? Since you're obviously not a McCartney fan.
One thing he did do... in 2003 put on one of the most awesome live concerts I've ever attended.
"It's just that demon life has got me in it's sway..."
-------------------------------------------------------
> what has he really done since the beatles broke
> up? very small success with wings, then a 15 year
> lull. I think chapman shot the wrong beatle!
JJ... I'd be very curious as to WHICH BANDS have impressed you over the past 30 years besides the Stones... anyone ?? Since you're obviously not a McCartney fan.
One thing he did do... in 2003 put on one of the most awesome live concerts I've ever attended.
"It's just that demon life has got me in it's sway..."
Re: paul mccarney- most over-rated ever
Posted by:
country honk
()
Date: November 23, 2005 06:58
"EVEN STONES FANS AGREE THAT MACCA SHOWS IS A LOT BETTER.
NUFF SAID!!!"
Don't agree - have seen Macca and he is the biggest joke ever.....
NUFF SAID!!!"
Don't agree - have seen Macca and he is the biggest joke ever.....
Re: paul mccarney- most over-rated ever
Posted by:
ferrante9
()
Date: November 23, 2005 08:43
you obvously haven't seen him
even a non mccartney fan, after seeim live.......will say that he is the undisputed king of the kings in music.
the stones, witout a set list varation , witout a b stage, would put out an average show.
macca, without a b stage, without a set list varation, still puts out the best show.
immagine if mcca only added a b stage like the stones, and a set list change every night......he 'd be smoking everybody.
even a non mccartney fan, after seeim live.......will say that he is the undisputed king of the kings in music.
the stones, witout a set list varation , witout a b stage, would put out an average show.
macca, without a b stage, without a set list varation, still puts out the best show.
immagine if mcca only added a b stage like the stones, and a set list change every night......he 'd be smoking everybody.
Re: paul mccarney- most over-rated ever
Posted by:
Manhattan
()
Date: November 23, 2005 09:05
WINGS WERE BETTER THAN THE STONES. AND NUMBERS SHOW THAT CLEARLY. MORE records
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: J.J.Flash (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 06:19
fartante 9 wrote:
>MAMMA MIA...
OR ASK KEITH TO PLAY BACKBIRD, OR JENNY WREN........NOT VERY GOOD
why would he want to, they both suck! i can whistle for 4 minutes, yeah i'm playing blackbird!
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: ferrante9 (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 06:25
YOU CAN ONLY WISTLE BECAUSE YOU CAN'T PLAY GUITAR!!!!
BUFFOON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: country honk (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 06:59
Mamma mia, macca mia, blabla mia......
Ferannnnnnttttteeeeeeeeeeee.....
"YOU CAN ONLY WISTLE BECAUSE YOU CAN'T PLAY GUITAR!!!! "
Most of us have a much better musical understanding than you have.....
Macca is the most overrated stupid, that has ever been.... he is pop singer, not a rock singer..... just face it.......
Mamma miaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa......
Seems like you should have some hearing aid......
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: camper88 (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 07:01
mr edward Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let the thread be. Ferrante is getting way more
> attention than he or his opinions deserve.
>
> regards, mr edward
Amen, Mr. Edward.
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: ferrante9 (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 07:05
pop my ass.....
buffoon see?
macca is the multy musical talent....
he can pop: silly love song, my brave face
he can country: i v just seen a face
he can country rock: friends to go
he can rock: i m down, paperback writer
and can hard rock: let me roll it, live and let die
he can heavy metal: helter skelter
he can be piano man: maybe i m amazed, hey jude
m jackson is the king of pop
elvis is the king of rocke and roll
stones are the best rock and roll band in the world
MACCA IS THE KING OF THE KINGS IN MUSIC!!!!!!!
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: country honk (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 07:22
Pop ny ass....
Your musical understanding is in your asss...... mamma miiiiiiiaaaaaaaa....
You said Macca sings better than Elvis...... try to listen to In the Ghetto, Burning Love..... Has Macca ever sung like that - never?????
Macca is the king of greedines, stupidity...... not music, he is plain and simple pop musician.....
Mamma miiiiiaaaaaaa
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: Hairball (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 07:35
ferrante9 wrote:
"MACCA IS THE BEST ROCK AND ROLL SINGER FOR THE
FOLLOWING REASONS:...REVOLUTION."
Wrong. Revolution is sung by John Lennon.
And earlier you cite Pauls vocals on Because. Wrong again, thats John Lennon.
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: ferrante9 (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 07:44
WHO PLAYS GUITAR ??? MACCA
BECAUSE WERE ALL 4 BEATLES SINGINGING.
HAVE YOU LISTENED TO RUN DEVIL RUN??? PLENTY OF ELVIS S SONGS' ON THERE AND MADE THEM BETTER........
MACCA IS THE ROCK AND ROLL ICON.
I MEAN..THE GUY IS SO VERSATILE...AND HE CAN ROCK AND ROLL THE BEST..HE CAN POP, HE CAN DO CLASSICAL, ROCK, HARD ROCK, HEAVY METAL...
PLUS HE IS THE KING OF LIVE PERFORMANCES.....DID YOU SEE LAST' YEAR'S SUPEBOWL???
MAMMA MIA....
WHAT ABOUT CONCERT FOR NEW YORK????
MACCA IS TRULY THE KING OF THE KINGS IN MUSIC!!!!
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: LA FORUM (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 11:31
ferrante9 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pop my ass.....
>
>
> buffoon see?
>
>
> macca is the multy musical talent....
>
> he can pop: silly love song, my brave face
>
> he can country: i v just seen a face
>
> he can country rock: friends to go
>
> he can rock: i m down, paperback writer
>
> and can hard rock: let me roll it, live and let
> die
>
> he can heavy metal: helter skelter
>
>
> he can be piano man: maybe i m amazed, hey jude
>
>
>
> m jackson is the king of pop
> elvis is the king of rocke and roll
> stones are the best rock and roll band in the
> world
>
> MACCA IS THE KING OF THE KINGS IN MUSIC!!!!!!!
Don't be so strict! You live with straights who tell you you is king. Jackson is not king of pop, he is queen of the childway.
and Ay ay baby it hurts
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: drbryant (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 11:59
No one in popular music history ever had the talent that Paul McCartney had at the age of 21. And no one, and I mean NO ONE, ever betrayed those gifts the way that Paul did in the 15 years following the break up of the Beatles. Slipshod lyrics, unproduced, unfinished song bites, derivative melodies -- "product" of such astoundingly poor quality that even to this day, there are only two possible explanations: (i) a complete contempt for his audience, or (ii) a carelessness with his finished recordings that over the course of many years, resulted in his simply forgetting how to make good music. At the age of 21, Paul's gifts were so amazing that even today, one can only look back in disbelief -- listen to early Beatles work, especially the Hard Day's Night CD -- the melodies on Paul's tunes are uniformly memorable, the lyrics were complete and realized, and as for his vocals -- there simply hasn't been a more versatile voice in popular music before, or since. We watched him mature in 7 years from 64-70, honing his craft, developing as a truly influential bassist, always looking for new sounds, constantly taking risks. Listening to Paul's work in the 15 years following the breakup is painful -- aside from two legitimate, incredible efforts, 1973's Band on the Run, and 1981's Tug of War, there is alot of catchy, but disposable pop and some horrendous missteps, Wild Life, McCartney II, Back to the Egg and Press to Play, for example, are so bad that if it were not Paul McCartney, no record lable would have released them. In 1984, of course, he released one of the worst movies ever made, and filled the soundtrack with second-rate versions of his Beatles hits. There isn't one decent track on any of those albums, and combined, they probably represent 7 years worth of his work (or as long as the Beatles were recording). Initially, he traded on the goodwill he had from being a Beatle, and his records sold well. By the end of the seventies, the party was over, and neither critics nor former fans were about to give him the benefit of the doubt. He struggled to rediscover his talents, and his work since Broad Street has been decent, albeit uneven and largely forgotten. The gift for melody seems long gone, and his singing has become mannered, almost painful to listen to. He tries very hard to please nowadays, playing a live show that is meticulously planned (every move, every comment appears rehearsed), and trades heavily on the initial 7 years of his career. It's fun to watch in the same way that a Broadway musical is fun to watch -- you can admire the craft and the effort, but there's little reason to see it twice. Check McCartney fan boards -- since nothing changes from show-to-show, the main topic seems to be how many times he plays the refrain from I'll follow the Sun, or whether he made "significant eye contact" with a particular fan.
It's ridiculous to compare, but I honestly don't think that Mick would claim to have had the talent that Paul had. However, what he did have was a core group of guys (KR, CW, BW, BJ, MT, Ronnie and Stu) that were and remain committed to being a solid R&B combo, and every 3 years or so, they re-emerge to remind everyone that they are the world's greatest rock and roll band. Mick and his band have, with a few odd detours, remained true to their muse, The result is a much more consistent body of work -- nothing the Stones have done comes close to the disaster of McCartney II or the Broad Street film. And, I should add, they remain (despite the carping from all the people on iorr.org, rs.com, or shidoobee) the world's greatest rock and roll band.
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: Erik_Snow (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 12:14
That was a very well-written post!
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: LA FORUM (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 12:24
Well written post yes but I dont hink his singing voice was very good in the beginning compared to John. When he "matured" or really got guts in 1968, 1969 he was one of the best singers ever. But, yes, he was a very good singer in the Silver Beatles and on demos from that period.
and Ay ay baby it hurts
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: JumpingKentFlash (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 13:12
Post of the year goes to DrBryant IMO. Great post although I don't agree in Macca's stuff being that bad. But he certainly never held the standard of the Stones (Which has been great all the way through with the exceptions of a few albums in the 80s and two albums in the 60s).
JP: Did you get my mail some days ago???
"Better than suicide"
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: marianna (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 14:08
But wait a minute -- the Stones did a lot of bad music after Exile! Not nearly as bad as Paul McCartney (well, a lot of McCartney), but not all good. All the '60s people declined, Bob Dylan included.
But I love a lot of Paul's things, especially with the Beatles and his earlier solo things. He did a few good things here and there after that, just as the Stones have done some good things, but it doesn't compare to the earlier work. I also love Paul's singing, and he is an excellent rock singer. It's tiresome that people think he suffers in comparison with John. But I wouldn't put Paul or the Beatles ahead of the Stones. It's too bad the Beatles didn't stick it out the way the Stones did, because they really did need each other. I'm glad the Stones never grew up (as John Lennon once put it -- but really, should growing up mean giving up your friends and interests in life?).
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: Hairball (IP Logged)
Date: November 23, 2005 05:16
I was born and raised with the Beatles and the Stones in 1963. They are on equal ground in my mind and always will be.
To compare them is not a part of my vocabulary. It's idiotic as a matter of fact.
But...if we're talking Macca solo over the Stones (or Jagger) or whatever, I'd say Macca is the big loser. He really needed John to help him with the music. Even some of his solo hits (Band On The Run, Jet, etc.) were probably written during his Beatles days.
The proof? Macca's post-'76 solo stuff is a disgrace. Then to top it off, in the early '80's he decides to duet with Michael "Whacko" Jackson. Case closed...the end of it. Paul is the loser.
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: ferrante9 (IP Logged)
Date: November 23, 2005 05:51
BUFFOON SEE?????
WINGS OUTSOLD THE STONES AND THE BEATLES COMBINED.
THEY GOT 7 CONSECUTIVE #1 ALBUMS.
#1 SINGLES LEFT AND RIGHT
BROKE ATTANDANCE RECORD.
WINGS WERE BETTER THAN THE STONES. AND NUMBERS SHOW THAT CLEARLY. MORE PEOPLE BUGHT WINGS RECORDS THAN THEY DID FOR THE STONES AND THE BEATLES COMBINED.
WINGS RELEASED A SERIES OF MASTERPIECES.....BAND ONT HE RUN, VENUS AND MARS, AT THE SPEED OF SOUND, LONDON TOWN, AND BACK TO THE EGG.
MACCA AS A SOLO MANAGED TO WRITE EVEN MORE MASTERPIECES.
EBONY AND IVORY
SAY SAY SAY
SOMEONE WHO CARES
ALSO EVEN ON MACCARTNEY 2...WHICH MANAGED TO REACH #1 IN THE UK AND #2 IN THE US..AND THE SINGLE COMING UP WENT TO #1.
YOU THINK IT'S BAD??? IT WENT TO #1!!!!
GIVE MY REGARDS TO BROADSTREET WAS A GREAT MOVIE...ALSO THE SOUNDTRACK WAS GREAT.
ALL OF THOSE BEATLES SONGS HE DID WERE BETTER THAN THE ORIGINAL RECORDINGS.
PRESS TO PLAY WAS A B ALBUM..WITH MANY GREAT TUNE SUCH AS FOOTPRINTS.
MACCA REALLY STARTED TO SHINE BIG TIME WITH FLOWERS IN THE DIRT....1989....AND FROM THERE ON HE RELEASED A GREAT ALBUM AFTER ANOTHER.
OFF THE GROUND, FLAMING PIE, RUN DEVIL RUN, DRIVING RAIN, AND CHAOS.
I CAN SAY THAT MAYBE MCCARTNEY 2 IS THE ONLY SO SO ALBUM THAT MACCA EVER DID.
BUT THE FOLLOWING ALBUMS ARE BETTER THAN ANY OF THE STONESOR BEATLES ALBUMS ...
RAM
BAND ON THE RUN
AT THE SPEED OF SOUND
VENUS AND MARS
BACK TO THE EGG
TUG OR WAR
FLOWERS IN THE DIRT
OFF THE GROUND
FLAMING PIE
DRIVING RAIN
CHAOS
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: deuce (IP Logged)
Date: November 23, 2005 06:40
Dude, your a joke.
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: drbryant (IP Logged)
Date: November 23, 2005 07:13
BUT THE FOLLOWING ALBUMS ARE BETTER THAN ANY OF THE STONESOR BEATLES ALBUMS ...
RAM
BAND ON THE RUN
AT THE SPEED OF SOUND
VENUS AND MARS
BACK TO THE EGG
TUG OR WAR
FLOWERS IN THE DIRT
OFF THE GROUND
FLAMING PIE
DRIVING RAIN
CHAOS
. . . . wow, what a statement. At some point, all credibility is lost. This is that point.
Glad that everyone liked my prior post.
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: ferrante9 (IP Logged)
Date: November 23, 2005 08:39
the cool thing about macca is the every album is different....he doesn't try to use the same formula over and over like the stones, bond jovi etc....
ram is a totally different album than band on the run. speed of sound is different than back to the eggs.
driving rain is different than chaos.
every time he puts out an album, it s got new fresh sound......
that's a sign of an artist.
bigger bang is no different than bridges over babylon.
it's all good......doesn't hurt the stones.
but macca turly is the king of the kings...just because he his so versitile.....he can do different types of music.
mick jagger solo or bono solo would not be as big as mccartney.
macca is now even bigger than elvis, the beatles, wings, and the stones combined!!!!!!
one guy signle handedly taking over everything.
it's just amazing.
john lennon as a solo wasn't as succesful as paul
ringo , geroge were no way near paul
bono would be a buffoon compare to macca
mick would be a true buffoon compare to macca
macca , all by himeself.......made himself bigger than anybody else!!!
just amazing.!!!!!!
i v been to many concerts...and i must admit that macca is the king of hte kings of love shows.
the stones are probably 2nd....but now way near macca!!!!!
Options: Reply To This MessagTalk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Goto Thread: Previous•NextGoto: Forum List•Message List•New Topic•Search•Log In
Goto Page: Previous12345Current Page:5 of 5
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: ferrante9 (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 06:16
buffoon!!!!
let me tell you what's up.
MICK IS A VOCALIST/PERFOMER....HE IS NOT A TRUE MUSICIAN.
TRUE, HE PLAYS GUITAR ON MISS YOU....BUT IS IT REALLY NECESSESARY FOR HIM TO PLAY? IT DOESN'T improve THE SONG, BUT HE IS ONLY HURTING IT. INSTEAD OF HIM PLAYING THE GUITAR, WHY DOESN'T HE DANCE TO THAT SONG....IT D' BE GETTING THE CROWN MORE INVOLVED......
MICK CAN; T PLAY GUITAR FOR SHIT........ASK HIM TO PLAY BLACKBIRD OR JENNY WREN....
MAMMA MIA...
OR ASK KEITH TO PLAY BACKBIRD, OR JENNY WREN........NOT VERY GOOD.
MICK IS A GREAT PERFORMER, AND AN OKAY SINGER....
MACCA IS THE BEST ROCK AND ROLL SINGER FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
EARLY DAYS: KANSAS CITY HEY HEY HEY, LUCILLE, LONT TALL SALLY.
BEATLES MID YEARS: I M DOWN, PAPERBACK WRITER, DRIVE MY CAR
BEATLES PEAK: HELTER SKETLER, BACK IN THE USSR, TAXMAN ( MACCA PLAYS LEAD GUITAR), SGT PEPPERS, THE END, REVOLUTION.
WINGS: LIVE AND LET DIE, JR FARMS, LETTING GO, BEWARE MY LOVE, LET ME ROLL IT, OLD SIAM SIR, SPIT IN ON, VENUS AND MARS/ROCK SHOW.
SOLO: COMING UP, RINSE THE RAINDROP, LONELY ROAD, ABOUT YOU.
THERE YOU GO...THOSE ARE JUST SOME OF THE EXAMPLE OF HOW HARD MACCA CAN ROCK HARDER THAN MICK AND COMPANY.
AND MACCA ROCKS HARDER LIVE THAN THE STONES. YOU COULD ASK ANYONE WHO S BEEN TO BOTH SHOWS...AND THEY LL TELL YOU THAT MACCA PUTS ON A BETTER SHOW. NOT THAT THE STONES DON'T PUT ON A GOOD SHOW...IT'S JUST THAT MACCA IT'S SIMPLE THE KING OF THE KINGS.
AND BY THE WAY.......MACCA IS THE TRUE DEFINITION OF ROCK AND ROLL!!!!!!!
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: J.J.Flash (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 06:19
fartante 9 wrote:
>MAMMA MIA...
OR ASK KEITH TO PLAY BACKBIRD, OR JENNY WREN........NOT VERY GOOD
why would he want to, they both suck! i can whistle for 4 minutes, yeah i'm playing blackbird!
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: ferrante9 (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 06:25
YOU CAN ONLY WISTLE BECAUSE YOU CAN'T PLAY GUITAR!!!!
BUFFOON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: country honk (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 06:59
Mamma mia, macca mia, blabla mia......
Ferannnnnnttttteeeeeeeeeeee.....
"YOU CAN ONLY WISTLE BECAUSE YOU CAN'T PLAY GUITAR!!!! "
Most of us have a much better musical understanding than you have.....
Macca is the most overrated stupid, that has ever been.... he is pop singer, not a rock singer..... just face it.......
Mamma miaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa......
Seems like you should have some hearing aid......
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: camper88 (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 07:01
mr edward Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let the thread be. Ferrante is getting way more
> attention than he or his opinions deserve.
>
> regards, mr edward
Amen, Mr. Edward.
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: ferrante9 (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 07:05
pop my ass.....
buffoon see?
macca is the multy musical talent....
he can pop: silly love song, my brave face
he can country: i v just seen a face
he can country rock: friends to go
he can rock: i m down, paperback writer
and can hard rock: let me roll it, live and let die
he can heavy metal: helter skelter
he can be piano man: maybe i m amazed, hey jude
m jackson is the king of pop
elvis is the king of rocke and roll
stones are the best rock and roll band in the world
MACCA IS THE KING OF THE KINGS IN MUSIC!!!!!!!
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: country honk (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 07:22
Pop ny ass....
Your musical understanding is in your asss...... mamma miiiiiiiaaaaaaaa....
You said Macca sings better than Elvis...... try to listen to In the Ghetto, Burning Love..... Has Macca ever sung like that - never?????
Macca is the king of greedines, stupidity...... not music, he is plain and simple pop musician.....
Mamma miiiiiaaaaaaa
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: Hairball (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 07:35
ferrante9 wrote:
"MACCA IS THE BEST ROCK AND ROLL SINGER FOR THE
FOLLOWING REASONS:...REVOLUTION."
Wrong. Revolution is sung by John Lennon.
And earlier you cite Pauls vocals on Because. Wrong again, thats John Lennon.
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: ferrante9 (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 07:44
WHO PLAYS GUITAR ??? MACCA
BECAUSE WERE ALL 4 BEATLES SINGINGING.
HAVE YOU LISTENED TO RUN DEVIL RUN??? PLENTY OF ELVIS S SONGS' ON THERE AND MADE THEM BETTER........
MACCA IS THE ROCK AND ROLL ICON.
I MEAN..THE GUY IS SO VERSATILE...AND HE CAN ROCK AND ROLL THE BEST..HE CAN POP, HE CAN DO CLASSICAL, ROCK, HARD ROCK, HEAVY METAL...
PLUS HE IS THE KING OF LIVE PERFORMANCES.....DID YOU SEE LAST' YEAR'S SUPEBOWL???
MAMMA MIA....
WHAT ABOUT CONCERT FOR NEW YORK????
MACCA IS TRULY THE KING OF THE KINGS IN MUSIC!!!!
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: LA FORUM (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 11:31
ferrante9 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pop my ass.....
>
>
> buffoon see?
>
>
> macca is the multy musical talent....
>
> he can pop: silly love song, my brave face
>
> he can country: i v just seen a face
>
> he can country rock: friends to go
>
> he can rock: i m down, paperback writer
>
> and can hard rock: let me roll it, live and let
> die
>
> he can heavy metal: helter skelter
>
>
> he can be piano man: maybe i m amazed, hey jude
>
>
>
> m jackson is the king of pop
> elvis is the king of rocke and roll
> stones are the best rock and roll band in the
> world
>
> MACCA IS THE KING OF THE KINGS IN MUSIC!!!!!!!
Don't be so strict! You live with straights who tell you you is king. Jackson is not king of pop, he is queen of the childway.
and Ay ay baby it hurts
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: drbryant (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 11:59
No one in popular music history ever had the talent that Paul McCartney had at the age of 21. And no one, and I mean NO ONE, ever betrayed those gifts the way that Paul did in the 15 years following the break up of the Beatles. Slipshod lyrics, unproduced, unfinished song bites, derivative melodies -- "product" of such astoundingly poor quality that even to this day, there are only two possible explanations: (i) a complete contempt for his audience, or (ii) a carelessness with his finished recordings that over the course of many years, resulted in his simply forgetting how to make good music. At the age of 21, Paul's gifts were so amazing that even today, one can only look back in disbelief -- listen to early Beatles work, especially the Hard Day's Night CD -- the melodies on Paul's tunes are uniformly memorable, the lyrics were complete and realized, and as for his vocals -- there simply hasn't been a more versatile voice in popular music before, or since. We watched him mature in 7 years from 64-70, honing his craft, developing as a truly influential bassist, always looking for new sounds, constantly taking risks. Listening to Paul's work in the 15 years following the breakup is painful -- aside from two legitimate, incredible efforts, 1973's Band on the Run, and 1981's Tug of War, there is alot of catchy, but disposable pop and some horrendous missteps, Wild Life, McCartney II, Back to the Egg and Press to Play, for example, are so bad that if it were not Paul McCartney, no record lable would have released them. In 1984, of course, he released one of the worst movies ever made, and filled the soundtrack with second-rate versions of his Beatles hits. There isn't one decent track on any of those albums, and combined, they probably represent 7 years worth of his work (or as long as the Beatles were recording). Initially, he traded on the goodwill he had from being a Beatle, and his records sold well. By the end of the seventies, the party was over, and neither critics nor former fans were about to give him the benefit of the doubt. He struggled to rediscover his talents, and his work since Broad Street has been decent, albeit uneven and largely forgotten. The gift for melody seems long gone, and his singing has become mannered, almost painful to listen to. He tries very hard to please nowadays, playing a live show that is meticulously planned (every move, every comment appears rehearsed), and trades heavily on the initial 7 years of his career. It's fun to watch in the same way that a Broadway musical is fun to watch -- you can admire the craft and the effort, but there's little reason to see it twice. Check McCartney fan boards -- since nothing changes from show-to-show, the main topic seems to be how many times he plays the refrain from I'll follow the Sun, or whether he made "significant eye contact" with a particular fan.
It's ridiculous to compare, but I honestly don't think that Mick would claim to have had the talent that Paul had. However, what he did have was a core group of guys (KR, CW, BW, BJ, MT, Ronnie and Stu) that were and remain committed to being a solid R&B combo, and every 3 years or so, they re-emerge to remind everyone that they are the world's greatest rock and roll band. Mick and his band have, with a few odd detours, remained true to their muse, The result is a much more consistent body of work -- nothing the Stones have done comes close to the disaster of McCartney II or the Broad Street film. And, I should add, they remain (despite the carping from all the people on iorr.org, rs.com, or shidoobee) the world's greatest rock and roll band.
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: Erik_Snow (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 12:14
That was a very well-written post!
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: LA FORUM (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 12:24
Well written post yes but I dont hink his singing voice was very good in the beginning compared to John. When he "matured" or really got guts in 1968, 1969 he was one of the best singers ever. But, yes, he was a very good singer in the Silver Beatles and on demos from that period.
and Ay ay baby it hurts
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: JumpingKentFlash (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 13:12
Post of the year goes to DrBryant IMO. Great post although I don't agree in Macca's stuff being that bad. But he certainly never held the standard of the Stones (Which has been great all the way through with the exceptions of a few albums in the 80s and two albums in the 60s).
JP: Did you get my mail some days ago???
"Better than suicide"
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: marianna (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 14:08
But wait a minute -- the Stones did a lot of bad music after Exile! Not nearly as bad as Paul McCartney (well, a lot of McCartney), but not all good. All the '60s people declined, Bob Dylan included.
But I love a lot of Paul's things, especially with the Beatles and his earlier solo things. He did a few good things here and there after that, just as the Stones have done some good things, but it doesn't compare to the earlier work. I also love Paul's singing, and he is an excellent rock singer. It's tiresome that people think he suffers in comparison with John. But I wouldn't put Paul or the Beatles ahead of the Stones. It's too bad the Beatles didn't stick it out the way the Stones did, because they really did need each other. I'm glad the Stones never grew up (as John Lennon once put it -- but really, should growing up mean giving up your friends and interests in life?).
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: Hairball (IP Logged)
Date: November 23, 2005 05:16
I was born and raised with the Beatles and the Stones in 1963. They are on equal ground in my mind and always will be.
To compare them is not a part of my vocabulary. It's idiotic as a matter of fact.
But...if we're talking Macca solo over the Stones (or Jagger) or whatever, I'd say Macca is the big loser. He really needed John to help him with the music. Even some of his solo hits (Band On The Run, Jet, etc.) were probably written during his Beatles days.
The proof? Macca's post-'76 solo stuff is a disgrace. Then to top it off, in the early '80's he decides to duet with Michael "Whacko" Jackson. Case closed...the end of it. Paul is the loser.
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: ferrante9 (IP Logged)
Date: November 23, 2005 05:51
BUFFOON SEE?????
WINGS OUTSOLD THE STONES AND THE BEATLES COMBINED.
THEY GOT 7 CONSECUTIVE #1 ALBUMS.
#1 SINGLES LEFT AND RIGHT
BROKE ATTANDANCE RECORD.
WINGS WERE BETTER THAN THE STONES. AND NUMBERS SHOW THAT CLEARLY. MORE PEOPLE BUGHT WINGS RECORDS THAN THEY DID FOR THE STONES AND THE BEATLES COMBINED.
WINGS RELEASED A SERIES OF MASTERPIECES.....BAND ONT HE RUN, VENUS AND MARS, AT THE SPEED OF SOUND, LONDON TOWN, AND BACK TO THE EGG.
MACCA AS A SOLO MANAGED TO WRITE EVEN MORE MASTERPIECES.
EBONY AND IVORY
SAY SAY SAY
SOMEONE WHO CARES
ALSO EVEN ON MACCARTNEY 2...WHICH MANAGED TO REACH #1 IN THE UK AND #2 IN THE US..AND THE SINGLE COMING UP WENT TO #1.
YOU THINK IT'S BAD??? IT WENT TO #1!!!!
GIVE MY REGARDS TO BROADSTREET WAS A GREAT MOVIE...ALSO THE SOUNDTRACK WAS GREAT.
ALL OF THOSE BEATLES SONGS HE DID WERE BETTER THAN THE ORIGINAL RECORDINGS.
PRESS TO PLAY WAS A B ALBUM..WITH MANY GREAT TUNE SUCH AS FOOTPRINTS.
MACCA REALLY STARTED TO SHINE BIG TIME WITH FLOWERS IN THE DIRT....1989....AND FROM THERE ON HE RELEASED A GREAT ALBUM AFTER ANOTHER.
OFF THE GROUND, FLAMING PIE, RUN DEVIL RUN, DRIVING RAIN, AND CHAOS.
I CAN SAY THAT MAYBE MCCARTNEY 2 IS THE ONLY SO SO ALBUM THAT MACCA EVER DID.
BUT THE FOLLOWING ALBUMS ARE BETTER THAN ANY OF THE STONESOR BEATLES ALBUMS ...
RAM
BAND ON THE RUN
AT THE SPEED OF SOUND
VENUS AND MARS
BACK TO THE EGG
TUG OR WAR
FLOWERS IN THE DIRT
OFF THE GROUND
FLAMING PIE
DRIVING RAIN
CHAOS
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: deuce (IP Logged)
Date: November 23, 2005 06:40
Dude, your a joke.
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: drbryant (IP Logged)
Date: November 23, 2005 07:13
BUT THE FOLLOWING ALBUMS ARE BETTER THAN ANY OF THE STONESOR BEATLES ALBUMS ...
RAM
BAND ON THE RUN
AT THE SPEED OF SOUND
VENUS AND MARS
BACK TO THE EGG
TUG OR WAR
FLOWERS IN THE DIRT
OFF THE GROUND
FLAMING PIE
DRIVING RAIN
CHAOS
. . . . wow, what a statement. At some point, all credibility is lost. This is that point.
Glad that everyone liked my prior post.
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: ferrante9 (IP Logged)
Date: November 23, 2005 08:39
the cool thing about macca is the every album is different....he doesn't try to use the same formula over and over like the stones, bond jovi etc....
ram is a totally different album than band on the run. speed of sound is different than back to the eggs.
driving rain is different than chaos.
every time he puts out an album, it s got new fresh sound......
that's a sign of an artist.
bigger bang is no different than bridges over babylon.
it's all good......doesn't hurt the stones.
but macca turly is the king of the kings...just because he his so versitile.....he can do different types of music.
mick jagger solo or bono solo would not be as big as mccartney.
macca is now even bigger than elvis, the beatles, wings, and the stones combined!!!!!!
one guy signle handedly taking over everything.
it's just amazing.
john lennon as a solo wasn't as succesful as paul
ringo , geroge were no way near paul
bono would be a buffoon compare to macca
mick would be a true buffoon compare to macca
macca , all by himeself.......made himself bigger than anybody else!!!
just amazing.!!!!!!
i v been to many concerts...and i must admit that macca is the king of hte kings of love shows.
the stones are probably 2nd....but now way near macca!!!!!
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Goto Page: Previous12345Current Page:5 of 5
Goto: Forum List•Message List•Search•Log InSorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users (Administrator)
BornOnTheBayou, Dan, Fennikel, Manhattan, Meredith Hunter, Per-Arne, René, RoddyD, The Stones, camper88, cc, drbryant, erikjjf, ferrante9, kahoosier, kaskatanas, letitbleed, loving cup, marianna, mickijaggeroo, monkey man, nikkibong, novica, poor immigrant, robbert, robertwaligora, swsfo, tatters, with sssoul
Record Number of Users: 150 on May 10, 2005 19:58
Record Number of Guests: 5 on September 6, 2004 14:39
e•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Goto Page: Previous12345Current Page:5 of 5
Goto: Forum List•Message List•Search•Log InSorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users (Administrator)
BornOnTheBayou, Dan, Fennikel, Manhattan, Meredith Hunter, Per-Arne, René, RoddyD, The Stones, camper88, cc, drbryant, erikjjf, ferrante9, kahoosier, kaskatanas, letitbleed, loving cup, marianna, mickijaggeroo, monkey man, nikkibong, novica, poor immigrant, robbert, robertwaligora, swsfo, tatters, with sssoul
Record Number of Users: 150 on May 10, 2005 19:58
Record Number of Guests: 5 on September 6, 2004 14:39
urrent Page:5 of 5
Goto: Forum List•Message List•Search•Log InSorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users (Administrator)
BornOnTheBayou, Dan, Fennikel, Manhattan, Meredith Hunter, Per-Arne, René, RoddyD, The Stones, camper88, cc, drbryant, erikjjf, ferrante9, kahoosier, kaskatanas, letitbleed, loving cup, marianna, mickijaggeroo, monkey man, nikkibong, novica, poor immigrant, robbert, robertwaligora, swsfo, tatters, with sssoul
Record Number of Users: 150 on May 10, 2005 19:58
Record Number of Guests: 5 on September 6, 2004 14:39
Goto: Forum List•Message List•Search•Log InSorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users (Administrator)
BornOnTheBayou, Dan, Fennikel, Manhattan, Meredith Hunter, Per-Arne, René, RoddyD, The Stones, camper88, cc, drbryant, erikjjf, ferrante9, kahoosier, kaskatanas, letitbleed, loving cup, marianna, mickijaggeroo, monkey man, nikkibong, novica, poor immigrant, robbert, robertwaligora, swsfo, tatters, with sssoul
Record Number of Users: 150 on May 10, 2005 19:58
Record Number of Guests: 5 on September 6, 2004 14:39
st•Search•Log InSorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users (Administrator)
BornOnTheBayou, Dan, Fennikel, Manhattan, Meredith Hunter, Per-Arne, René, RoddyD, The Stones, camper88, cc, drbryant, erikjjf, ferrante9, kahoosier, kaskatanas, letitbleed, loving cup, marianna, mickijaggeroo, monkey man, nikkibong, novica, poor immigrant, robbert, robertwaligora, swsfo, tatters, with sssoul
Record Number of Users: 150 on May 10, 2005 19:58
Record Number of Guests: 5 on September 6, 2004 14:39
Goto: Forum List•Message List•New Topic•Search•My Control Center•Log Out
Preview
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: Manhattan (IP Logged)
Goto: Forum List•Message List•New Topic•Search•Log Out
Goto Page: Previous123Current Page:3 of 3
Re: paul mccarney- most over-rated ever
Posted by: J.J.Flash (IP Logged)
Date: November 23, 2005 02:26
niklas wrote:
>Sorry Sir
i accept ur apology.
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Follow This Thread•Report This Message
Re: paul mccarney- most over-rated everRe: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: Ged Rambler (IP Logged)
Date: November 20, 2005 11:06
Jagger is KING - NO ARGUMENT.
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: farawayeyes2 (IP Logged)
Date: November 20, 2005 12:02
ferrante9 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> macca is the greatest rock and roll singer.
>
macca isn't a singer, and isn't rock'n'roll.
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: sunnybandyo99 (IP Logged)
Date: November 20, 2005 13:34
But Paul's solo album is better than Mick.You gotto agree this
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: JumpingKentFlash (IP Logged)
Date: November 20, 2005 13:40
Macca is the better singer.
Jagger is the utimate frontman singer, and he still packs a cool r 'n r voice.
"Better than suicide"
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: ferrante9 (IP Logged)
Date: November 20, 2005 14:07
macca isn't a singer??? isn't rock and roll???
i can tell you ingornace.
what do you call oh darling??? what do you call helter skelter???
buffoon!!!!!!
mick is fun to watch....he can't dance.......but it's fun to watch a skinny guy do funny moves....that's why people get a kick out of it.
macca is all about the music, all about rock and roll....
you go to his concert...and it's all about the music. rock and roll baby.
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: Rutger (IP Logged)
Date: November 20, 2005 14:15
Paul doesn't do it for me either. I can't get into his voice, it's simply to sweet. Mick isn't the same singer he once was either, but technically he's better than ever. I just don't think there's a comparison here.
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: JumpingKentFlash (IP Logged)
Date: November 20, 2005 14:19
ferrante9 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> what do you call oh darling??? what do you call
> helter skelter???
You really wanna know???
OK.
I call it "Good songs that rock, but is CRAP compared to The Stones rock 'n roll".
That's what I call it mister.
"Better than suicide"
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: country honk (IP Logged)
Date: November 20, 2005 14:33
"what do you call "oh darling"??? "
It is Macca trying to be somehowe a rock musician, but ends up some like a silly tralala singer.... he doens't have the credibity to be a rock musician...
The way he sings those songs, shaking his head, looking with his "ain't I a darling" eyes......
Face the truth - 98% of the time he is basically a pop singer - and he should stick to that, because he is good to write easygoing sing-along songs....
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: mr edward (IP Logged)
Date: November 20, 2005 14:40
rock 'n roll for people who thought elvis was too scary.
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: LA FORUM (IP Logged)
Date: November 20, 2005 14:42
Mick is cool and goodlooking, paul is just, i dunno, paul.
and Ay ay baby it hurts
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: Reptile (IP Logged)
Date: November 20, 2005 14:59
Say ferrante9, maybe you should go back to the McCartney fan forum.
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: deuce (IP Logged)
Date: November 20, 2005 17:05
What's wrong with liking some Macca? I'm the biggest Stones fan you'll ever come across but there are some Paul songs I dig. Mostly with the Beatles, but he's had a few decent solo tunes as well; "Maybe I'm Amazed", "Junior's Farm" - I think it actually stops there. But TONS of great songs with the Beatles. I don't care if they "rock" or not, their just good songs.
Now, he does not hold a candle to Mick Jagger. Mick is the greatest rock and roll performer that has ever lived and it will be a long time before someone takes his crown (if that day even ever comes). Mick's voice is still in strong shape. You can't expect him to sound like he did when he was in his 20's, but you can still easily tell it's Mick Jagger singing.
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: farawayeyes2 (IP Logged)
Date: November 20, 2005 17:18
ferrante9 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> macca isn't a singer??? isn't rock and roll???
>
> i can tell you ingornace.
>
> what do you call oh darling??? what do you call
> helter skelter???
>
>
> buffoon!!!!!!
>
hey darling be cool. i'll never say something offensive about other friends here in this forum. we're here to speak about music, to say our opinion, not to offend each other.
Edited 1 times. Last edit at 11/20/05 17:31 by farawayeyes2.
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: stones_serb (IP Logged)
Date: November 20, 2005 17:32
Both of them are rock and roll legends,people who made it all happen.Without two of them we wouldn't have rock as it has been all these years.They revolutionised the music.
I think that Maca might be in slightly better shape than Mick but it really doesn't matter because both of them are still amazing.
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: harlem shuffle (IP Logged)
Date: November 20, 2005 18:08
well paul hardly dont move on stage,so it,s much easier to sing then.jagger,s working on stage is so much more,you can,t compare them.and paul mccartney is not rock and roll,pop is his trone
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: witterings (IP Logged)
Date: November 20, 2005 18:16
tell your deaf grandmother, but not us !!!!!
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: Edward Twining (IP Logged)
Date: November 20, 2005 19:31
If we're talking purely voice i think McCartney's singing is considerably better.He has lost some of the 'lighter' aspects of his voice - it's now a little lower.On some songs it is noticeable eg Hello Goodbye, Fool On The Hill but on a number of other songs particularly the rockier song there's very little difference. He still does a great Little Richard and still sings whatever tempo of song with a great vitality.
Unfortunately i believe Mick at this period of his career is a long long way behind - just listen to his recent vocals on Sway - they're as flat as a pancake and he also tends to over accentuate badly at times.
Mick and The Stones will always be my favourite band - but lets be honest!
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: Erik_Snow (IP Logged)
Date: November 20, 2005 19:59
I think Micks voice is the only reason of listening to the new "Sway". The arrangement isnt good, but I was amazed how "young" his voice sounds. That he didnt stretch for the high notes is understandable. Mick sounds really good. A lot of the recordings from the 70s, for instance the "rare" tracks from Vancouver 1972, which is appropiate to compare to, isnt that good. The guitars were much better, and the mood were dangerous and irresistable, but the singing aint that good. Micks singing nowdays is the best part of the Rolling Stones´ sound.
(Hope that wasnt a boring post.)
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: Some Girl (IP Logged)
Date: November 20, 2005 21:09
Ah. . . once again, there's Mick Jagger's amazing ability to get as trashed on a Stones board as he would on an "impartial" board... Post this thread on a Macca board and you'd get torn a new @#$%& for even suggesting to compare Macca with Mick but on a Stones board... no. Everyone's desire to be as "objective" as possible (even if they are full of shit) evetually gets the 'Stone' as trashed (or more) as the 'other party'. And, Reptile, LOL, right on.
And the guy who said Macca is in better shape than Mick... oh boy.. Let me predict a "Bono is in better shape than Mick" as a thread that's bound to pop up soon...
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: Reptile (IP Logged)
Date: November 20, 2005 21:20
Buffoon! Hahahahahahahaha! Who uses that word...
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Goto Page: Previous12345NextCurrent Page:2 of 5
Goto: Forum List•Message List•Search•Log InSorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users (Administrator)
BornOnTheBayou, Dan, Fennikel, Jed Clever, Manhattan, Meredith Hunter, René, RoddyD, The Stones, camper88, drbryant, erikjjf, ferrante9, kahoosier, kaskatanas, letitbleed, loving cup, marianna, mickijaggeroo, monkey man, nikkibong, novica, poor immigrant, robbert, robertwaligora, swsfo, tatters, with sssoul
Record Number of Users: 150 on May 10, 2005 19:58
Record Number of Guests: 5 on September 6, 2004 14:
Posted by: virgil (IP Logged)
Date: November 23, 2005 02:52
The Stones Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This subject is so tedious and utterly stupid, so
> in order to make it a helluva lot more interesting
> I'll post a few pics of Meg White. Here we go.
> Enjoy!!!
>
>
Who's this Slut.
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Follow This Thread•Report This Message
Re: paul mccarney- most over-rated ever
Posted by: ferrante9 (IP Logged)
Date: November 23, 2005 05:56
EVEN STONES FANS AGREE THAT MACCA SHOWS IS A LOT BETTER.
NUFF SAID!!!
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Follow This Thread•Report This Message
Re: paul mccarney- most over-rated ever
Posted by: BornOnTheBayou (IP Logged)
Date: November 23, 2005 06:41
J.J.Flash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> what has he really done since the beatles broke
> up? very small success with wings, then a 15 year
> lull. I think chapman shot the wrong beatle!
JJ... I'd be very curious as to WHICH BANDS have impressed you over the past 30 years besides the Stones... anyone ?? Since you're obviously not a McCartney fan.
One thing he did do... in 2003 put on one of the most awesome live concerts I've ever attended.
"It's just that demon life has got me in it's sway..."
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Follow This Thread•Report This Message
Re: paul mccarney- most over-rated ever
Posted by: country honk (IP Logged)
Date: November 23, 2005 06:58
"EVEN STONES FANS AGREE THAT MACCA SHOWS IS A LOT BETTER.
NUFF SAID!!!"
Don't agree - have seen Macca and he is the biggest joke ever.....
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Follow This Thread•Report This Message
Re: paul mccarney- most over-rated ever
Posted by: ferrante9 (IP Logged)
Date: November 23, 2005 08:43
you obvously haven't seen him
even a non mccartney fan, after seeim live.......will say that he is the undisputed king of the kings in music.
the stones, witout a set list varation , witout a b stage, would put out an average show.
macca, without a b stage, without a set list varation, still puts out the best show.
immagine if mcca only added a b stage like the stones, and a set list change every night......he 'd be smoking everybody.
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Follow This Thread•Report This Message
Goto Page: Previous123Current Page:3 of 3
Goto: Forum List•Message List•Search•My Control Center•Log OutYour Name: Manhattan
Subject:
Send replies to this thread to me via email
Add my signature to this post.
Online Users (Administrator)
BornOnTheBayou, Dan, Fennikel, Jed Clever, Manhattan, Meredith Hunter, René, RoddyD, The Stones, camper88, drbryant, erikjjf, ferrante9, happyexile, kahoosier, kaskatanas, loving cup, marianna, mariannerl, mickijaggeroo, nikkibong, novica, poor immigrant, robbert, robertwaligora, swsfo, tatters, with sssoul
Record Number of Users: 150 on May 10, 2005 19:58
Record Number of Guests: 5 on September 6, 2004 14:39Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Goto Thread: Previous•NextGoto: Forum List•Message List•New Topic•Search•Log Out
Goto Page: Previous12345Current Page:5 of 5
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: ferrante9 (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 06:16
buffoon!!!!
let me tell you what's up.
MICK IS A VOCALIST/PERFOMER....HE IS NOT A TRUE MUSICIAN.
TRUE, HE PLAYS GUITAR ON MISS YOU....BUT IS IT REALLY NECESSESARY FOR HIM TO PLAY? IT DOESN'T improve THE SONG, BUT HE IS ONLY HURTING IT. INSTEAD OF HIM PLAYING THE GUITAR, WHY DOESN'T HE DANCE TO THAT SONG....IT D' BE GETTING THE CROWN MORE INVOLVED......
MICK CAN; T PLAY GUITAR FOR SHIT........ASK HIM TO PLAY BLACKBIRD OR JENNY WREN....
MAMMA MIA...
OR ASK KEITH TO PLAY BACKBIRD, OR JENNY WREN........NOT VERY GOOD.
MICK IS A GREAT PERFORMER, AND AN OKAY SINGER....
MACCA IS THE BEST ROCK AND ROLL SINGER FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
EARLY DAYS: KANSAS CITY HEY HEY HEY, LUCILLE, LONT TALL SALLY.
BEATLES MID YEARS: I M DOWN, PAPERBACK WRITER, DRIVE MY CAR
BEATLES PEAK: HELTER SKETLER, BACK IN THE USSR, TAXMAN ( MACCA PLAYS LEAD GUITAR), SGT PEPPERS, THE END, REVOLUTION.
WINGS: LIVE AND LET DIE, JR FARMS, LETTING GO, BEWARE MY LOVE, LET ME ROLL IT, OLD SIAM SIR, SPIT IN ON, VENUS AND MARS/ROCK SHOW.
SOLO: COMING UP, RINSE THE RAINDROP, LONELY ROAD, ABOUT YOU.
THERE YOU GO...THOSE ARE JUST SOME OF THE EXAMPLE OF HOW HARD MACCA CAN ROCK HARDER THAN MICK AND COMPANY.
AND MACCA ROCKS HARDER LIVE THAN THE STONES. YOU COULD ASK ANYONE WHO S BEEN TO BOTH SHOWS...AND THEY LL TELL YOU THAT MACCA PUTS ON A BETTER SHOW. NOT THAT THE STONES DON'T PUT ON A GOOD SHOW...IT'S JUST THAT MACCA IT'S SIMPLE THE KING OF THE KINGS.
AND BY THE WAY.......MACCA IS THE TRUE DEFINITION OF ROCK AND ROLL!!!!!!!
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Follow This Thread•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: J.J.Flash (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 06:19
fartante 9 wrote:
>MAMMA MIA...
OR ASK KEITH TO PLAY BACKBIRD, OR JENNY WREN........NOT VERY GOOD
why would he want to, they both suck! i can whistle for 4 minutes, yeah i'm playing blackbird!
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Follow This Thread•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: ferrante9 (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 06:25
YOU CAN ONLY WISTLE BECAUSE YOU CAN'T PLAY GUITAR!!!!
BUFFOON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Follow This Thread•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: country honk (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 06:59
Mamma mia, macca mia, blabla mia......
Ferannnnnnttttteeeeeeeeeeee.....
"YOU CAN ONLY WISTLE BECAUSE YOU CAN'T PLAY GUITAR!!!! "
Most of us have a much better musical understanding than you have.....
Macca is the most overrated stupid, that has ever been.... he is pop singer, not a rock singer..... just face it.......
Mamma miaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa......
Seems like you should have some hearing aid......
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Follow This Thread•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: camper88 (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 07:01
mr edward Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let the thread be. Ferrante is getting way more
> attention than he or his opinions deserve.
>
> regards, mr edward
Amen, Mr. Edward.
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Follow This Thread•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: ferrante9 (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 07:05
pop my ass.....
buffoon see?
macca is the multy musical talent....
he can pop: silly love song, my brave face
he can country: i v just seen a face
he can country rock: friends to go
he can rock: i m down, paperback writer
and can hard rock: let me roll it, live and let die
he can heavy metal: helter skelter
he can be piano man: maybe i m amazed, hey jude
m jackson is the king of pop
elvis is the king of rocke and roll
stones are the best rock and roll band in the world
MACCA IS THE KING OF THE KINGS IN MUSIC!!!!!!!
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Follow This Thread•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: country honk (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 07:22
Pop ny ass....
Your musical understanding is in your asss...... mamma miiiiiiiaaaaaaaa....
You said Macca sings better than Elvis...... try to listen to In the Ghetto, Burning Love..... Has Macca ever sung like that - never?????
Macca is the king of greedines, stupidity...... not music, he is plain and simple pop musician.....
Mamma miiiiiaaaaaaa
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Follow This Thread•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: Hairball (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 07:35
ferrante9 wrote:
"MACCA IS THE BEST ROCK AND ROLL SINGER FOR THE
FOLLOWING REASONS:...REVOLUTION."
Wrong. Revolution is sung by John Lennon.
And earlier you cite Pauls vocals on Because. Wrong again, thats John Lennon.
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Follow This Thread•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: ferrante9 (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 07:44
WHO PLAYS GUITAR ??? MACCA
BECAUSE WERE ALL 4 BEATLES SINGINGING.
HAVE YOU LISTENED TO RUN DEVIL RUN??? PLENTY OF ELVIS S SONGS' ON THERE AND MADE THEM BETTER........
MACCA IS THE ROCK AND ROLL ICON.
I MEAN..THE GUY IS SO VERSATILE...AND HE CAN ROCK AND ROLL THE BEST..HE CAN POP, HE CAN DO CLASSICAL, ROCK, HARD ROCK, HEAVY METAL...
PLUS HE IS THE KING OF LIVE PERFORMANCES.....DID YOU SEE LAST' YEAR'S SUPEBOWL???
MAMMA MIA....
WHAT ABOUT CONCERT FOR NEW YORK????
MACCA IS TRULY THE KING OF THE KINGS IN MUSIC!!!!
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Follow This Thread•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: LA FORUM (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 11:31
ferrante9 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pop my ass.....
>
>
> buffoon see?
>
>
> macca is the multy musical talent....
>
> he can pop: silly love song, my brave face
>
> he can country: i v just seen a face
>
> he can country rock: friends to go
>
> he can rock: i m down, paperback writer
>
> and can hard rock: let me roll it, live and let
> die
>
> he can heavy metal: helter skelter
>
>
> he can be piano man: maybe i m amazed, hey jude
>
>
>
> m jackson is the king of pop
> elvis is the king of rocke and roll
> stones are the best rock and roll band in the
> world
>
> MACCA IS THE KING OF THE KINGS IN MUSIC!!!!!!!
Don't be so strict! You live with straights who tell you you is king. Jackson is not king of pop, he is queen of the childway.
and Ay ay baby it hurts
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Follow This Thread•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: drbryant (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 11:59
No one in popular music history ever had the talent that Paul McCartney had at the age of 21. And no one, and I mean NO ONE, ever betrayed those gifts the way that Paul did in the 15 years following the break up of the Beatles. Slipshod lyrics, unproduced, unfinished song bites, derivative melodies -- "product" of such astoundingly poor quality that even to this day, there are only two possible explanations: (i) a complete contempt for his audience, or (ii) a carelessness with his finished recordings that over the course of many years, resulted in his simply forgetting how to make good music. At the age of 21, Paul's gifts were so amazing that even today, one can only look back in disbelief -- listen to early Beatles work, especially the Hard Day's Night CD -- the melodies on Paul's tunes are uniformly memorable, the lyrics were complete and realized, and as for his vocals -- there simply hasn't been a more versatile voice in popular music before, or since. We watched him mature in 7 years from 64-70, honing his craft, developing as a truly influential bassist, always looking for new sounds, constantly taking risks. Listening to Paul's work in the 15 years following the breakup is painful -- aside from two legitimate, incredible efforts, 1973's Band on the Run, and 1981's Tug of War, there is alot of catchy, but disposable pop and some horrendous missteps, Wild Life, McCartney II, Back to the Egg and Press to Play, for example, are so bad that if it were not Paul McCartney, no record lable would have released them. In 1984, of course, he released one of the worst movies ever made, and filled the soundtrack with second-rate versions of his Beatles hits. There isn't one decent track on any of those albums, and combined, they probably represent 7 years worth of his work (or as long as the Beatles were recording). Initially, he traded on the goodwill he had from being a Beatle, and his records sold well. By the end of the seventies, the party was over, and neither critics nor former fans were about to give him the benefit of the doubt. He struggled to rediscover his talents, and his work since Broad Street has been decent, albeit uneven and largely forgotten. The gift for melody seems long gone, and his singing has become mannered, almost painful to listen to. He tries very hard to please nowadays, playing a live show that is meticulously planned (every move, every comment appears rehearsed), and trades heavily on the initial 7 years of his career. It's fun to watch in the same way that a Broadway musical is fun to watch -- you can admire the craft and the effort, but there's little reason to see it twice. Check McCartney fan boards -- since nothing changes from show-to-show, the main topic seems to be how many times he plays the refrain from I'll follow the Sun, or whether he made "significant eye contact" with a particular fan.
It's ridiculous to compare, but I honestly don't think that Mick would claim to have had the talent that Paul had. However, what he did have was a core group of guys (KR, CW, BW, BJ, MT, Ronnie and Stu) that were and remain committed to being a solid R&B combo, and every 3 years or so, they re-emerge to remind everyone that they are the world's greatest rock and roll band. Mick and his band have, with a few odd detours, remained true to their muse, The result is a much more consistent body of work -- nothing the Stones have done comes close to the disaster of McCartney II or the Broad Street film. And, I should add, they remain (despite the carping from all the people on iorr.org, rs.com, or shidoobee) the world's greatest rock and roll band.
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Follow This Thread•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: Erik_Snow (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 12:14
That was a very well-written post!
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Follow This Thread•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: LA FORUM (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 12:24
Well written post yes but I dont hink his singing voice was very good in the beginning compared to John. When he "matured" or really got guts in 1968, 1969 he was one of the best singers ever. But, yes, he was a very good singer in the Silver Beatles and on demos from that period.
and Ay ay baby it hurts
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Follow This Thread•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: JumpingKentFlash (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 13:12
Post of the year goes to DrBryant IMO. Great post although I don't agree in Macca's stuff being that bad. But he certainly never held the standard of the Stones (Which has been great all the way through with the exceptions of a few albums in the 80s and two albums in the 60s).
JP: Did you get my mail some days ago???
"Better than suicide"
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Follow This Thread•Report This Message
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: J.J.Flash (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 06:19
fartante 9 wrote:
>MAMMA MIA...
OR ASK KEITH TO PLAY BACKBIRD, OR JENNY WREN........NOT VERY GOOD
why would he want to, they both suck! i can whistle for 4 minutes, yeah i'm playing blackbird!
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: ferrante9 (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 06:25
YOU CAN ONLY WISTLE BECAUSE YOU CAN'T PLAY GUITAR!!!!
BUFFOON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: country honk (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 06:59
Mamma mia, macca mia, blabla mia......
Ferannnnnnttttteeeeeeeeeeee.....
"YOU CAN ONLY WISTLE BECAUSE YOU CAN'T PLAY GUITAR!!!! "
Most of us have a much better musical understanding than you have.....
Macca is the most overrated stupid, that has ever been.... he is pop singer, not a rock singer..... just face it.......
Mamma miaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa......
Seems like you should have some hearing aid......
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: camper88 (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 07:01
mr edward Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let the thread be. Ferrante is getting way more
> attention than he or his opinions deserve.
>
> regards, mr edward
Amen, Mr. Edward.
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: ferrante9 (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 07:05
pop my ass.....
buffoon see?
macca is the multy musical talent....
he can pop: silly love song, my brave face
he can country: i v just seen a face
he can country rock: friends to go
he can rock: i m down, paperback writer
and can hard rock: let me roll it, live and let die
he can heavy metal: helter skelter
he can be piano man: maybe i m amazed, hey jude
m jackson is the king of pop
elvis is the king of rocke and roll
stones are the best rock and roll band in the world
MACCA IS THE KING OF THE KINGS IN MUSIC!!!!!!!
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: country honk (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 07:22
Pop ny ass....
Your musical understanding is in your asss...... mamma miiiiiiiaaaaaaaa....
You said Macca sings better than Elvis...... try to listen to In the Ghetto, Burning Love..... Has Macca ever sung like that - never?????
Macca is the king of greedines, stupidity...... not music, he is plain and simple pop musician.....
Mamma miiiiiaaaaaaa
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: Hairball (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 07:35
ferrante9 wrote:
"MACCA IS THE BEST ROCK AND ROLL SINGER FOR THE
FOLLOWING REASONS:...REVOLUTION."
Wrong. Revolution is sung by John Lennon.
And earlier you cite Pauls vocals on Because. Wrong again, thats John Lennon.
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: ferrante9 (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 07:44
WHO PLAYS GUITAR ??? MACCA
BECAUSE WERE ALL 4 BEATLES SINGINGING.
HAVE YOU LISTENED TO RUN DEVIL RUN??? PLENTY OF ELVIS S SONGS' ON THERE AND MADE THEM BETTER........
MACCA IS THE ROCK AND ROLL ICON.
I MEAN..THE GUY IS SO VERSATILE...AND HE CAN ROCK AND ROLL THE BEST..HE CAN POP, HE CAN DO CLASSICAL, ROCK, HARD ROCK, HEAVY METAL...
PLUS HE IS THE KING OF LIVE PERFORMANCES.....DID YOU SEE LAST' YEAR'S SUPEBOWL???
MAMMA MIA....
WHAT ABOUT CONCERT FOR NEW YORK????
MACCA IS TRULY THE KING OF THE KINGS IN MUSIC!!!!
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: LA FORUM (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 11:31
ferrante9 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pop my ass.....
>
>
> buffoon see?
>
>
> macca is the multy musical talent....
>
> he can pop: silly love song, my brave face
>
> he can country: i v just seen a face
>
> he can country rock: friends to go
>
> he can rock: i m down, paperback writer
>
> and can hard rock: let me roll it, live and let
> die
>
> he can heavy metal: helter skelter
>
>
> he can be piano man: maybe i m amazed, hey jude
>
>
>
> m jackson is the king of pop
> elvis is the king of rocke and roll
> stones are the best rock and roll band in the
> world
>
> MACCA IS THE KING OF THE KINGS IN MUSIC!!!!!!!
Don't be so strict! You live with straights who tell you you is king. Jackson is not king of pop, he is queen of the childway.
and Ay ay baby it hurts
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: drbryant (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 11:59
No one in popular music history ever had the talent that Paul McCartney had at the age of 21. And no one, and I mean NO ONE, ever betrayed those gifts the way that Paul did in the 15 years following the break up of the Beatles. Slipshod lyrics, unproduced, unfinished song bites, derivative melodies -- "product" of such astoundingly poor quality that even to this day, there are only two possible explanations: (i) a complete contempt for his audience, or (ii) a carelessness with his finished recordings that over the course of many years, resulted in his simply forgetting how to make good music. At the age of 21, Paul's gifts were so amazing that even today, one can only look back in disbelief -- listen to early Beatles work, especially the Hard Day's Night CD -- the melodies on Paul's tunes are uniformly memorable, the lyrics were complete and realized, and as for his vocals -- there simply hasn't been a more versatile voice in popular music before, or since. We watched him mature in 7 years from 64-70, honing his craft, developing as a truly influential bassist, always looking for new sounds, constantly taking risks. Listening to Paul's work in the 15 years following the breakup is painful -- aside from two legitimate, incredible efforts, 1973's Band on the Run, and 1981's Tug of War, there is alot of catchy, but disposable pop and some horrendous missteps, Wild Life, McCartney II, Back to the Egg and Press to Play, for example, are so bad that if it were not Paul McCartney, no record lable would have released them. In 1984, of course, he released one of the worst movies ever made, and filled the soundtrack with second-rate versions of his Beatles hits. There isn't one decent track on any of those albums, and combined, they probably represent 7 years worth of his work (or as long as the Beatles were recording). Initially, he traded on the goodwill he had from being a Beatle, and his records sold well. By the end of the seventies, the party was over, and neither critics nor former fans were about to give him the benefit of the doubt. He struggled to rediscover his talents, and his work since Broad Street has been decent, albeit uneven and largely forgotten. The gift for melody seems long gone, and his singing has become mannered, almost painful to listen to. He tries very hard to please nowadays, playing a live show that is meticulously planned (every move, every comment appears rehearsed), and trades heavily on the initial 7 years of his career. It's fun to watch in the same way that a Broadway musical is fun to watch -- you can admire the craft and the effort, but there's little reason to see it twice. Check McCartney fan boards -- since nothing changes from show-to-show, the main topic seems to be how many times he plays the refrain from I'll follow the Sun, or whether he made "significant eye contact" with a particular fan.
It's ridiculous to compare, but I honestly don't think that Mick would claim to have had the talent that Paul had. However, what he did have was a core group of guys (KR, CW, BW, BJ, MT, Ronnie and Stu) that were and remain committed to being a solid R&B combo, and every 3 years or so, they re-emerge to remind everyone that they are the world's greatest rock and roll band. Mick and his band have, with a few odd detours, remained true to their muse, The result is a much more consistent body of work -- nothing the Stones have done comes close to the disaster of McCartney II or the Broad Street film. And, I should add, they remain (despite the carping from all the people on iorr.org, rs.com, or shidoobee) the world's greatest rock and roll band.
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: Erik_Snow (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 12:14
That was a very well-written post!
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: LA FORUM (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 12:24
Well written post yes but I dont hink his singing voice was very good in the beginning compared to John. When he "matured" or really got guts in 1968, 1969 he was one of the best singers ever. But, yes, he was a very good singer in the Silver Beatles and on demos from that period.
and Ay ay baby it hurts
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: JumpingKentFlash (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 13:12
Post of the year goes to DrBryant IMO. Great post although I don't agree in Macca's stuff being that bad. But he certainly never held the standard of the Stones (Which has been great all the way through with the exceptions of a few albums in the 80s and two albums in the 60s).
JP: Did you get my mail some days ago???
"Better than suicide"
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: marianna (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 14:08
But wait a minute -- the Stones did a lot of bad music after Exile! Not nearly as bad as Paul McCartney (well, a lot of McCartney), but not all good. All the '60s people declined, Bob Dylan included.
But I love a lot of Paul's things, especially with the Beatles and his earlier solo things. He did a few good things here and there after that, just as the Stones have done some good things, but it doesn't compare to the earlier work. I also love Paul's singing, and he is an excellent rock singer. It's tiresome that people think he suffers in comparison with John. But I wouldn't put Paul or the Beatles ahead of the Stones. It's too bad the Beatles didn't stick it out the way the Stones did, because they really did need each other. I'm glad the Stones never grew up (as John Lennon once put it -- but really, should growing up mean giving up your friends and interests in life?).
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: Hairball (IP Logged)
Date: November 23, 2005 05:16
I was born and raised with the Beatles and the Stones in 1963. They are on equal ground in my mind and always will be.
To compare them is not a part of my vocabulary. It's idiotic as a matter of fact.
But...if we're talking Macca solo over the Stones (or Jagger) or whatever, I'd say Macca is the big loser. He really needed John to help him with the music. Even some of his solo hits (Band On The Run, Jet, etc.) were probably written during his Beatles days.
The proof? Macca's post-'76 solo stuff is a disgrace. Then to top it off, in the early '80's he decides to duet with Michael "Whacko" Jackson. Case closed...the end of it. Paul is the loser.
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: ferrante9 (IP Logged)
Date: November 23, 2005 05:51
BUFFOON SEE?????
WINGS OUTSOLD THE STONES AND THE BEATLES COMBINED.
THEY GOT 7 CONSECUTIVE #1 ALBUMS.
#1 SINGLES LEFT AND RIGHT
BROKE ATTANDANCE RECORD.
WINGS WERE BETTER THAN THE STONES. AND NUMBERS SHOW THAT CLEARLY. MORE PEOPLE BUGHT WINGS RECORDS THAN THEY DID FOR THE STONES AND THE BEATLES COMBINED.
WINGS RELEASED A SERIES OF MASTERPIECES.....BAND ONT HE RUN, VENUS AND MARS, AT THE SPEED OF SOUND, LONDON TOWN, AND BACK TO THE EGG.
MACCA AS A SOLO MANAGED TO WRITE EVEN MORE MASTERPIECES.
EBONY AND IVORY
SAY SAY SAY
SOMEONE WHO CARES
ALSO EVEN ON MACCARTNEY 2...WHICH MANAGED TO REACH #1 IN THE UK AND #2 IN THE US..AND THE SINGLE COMING UP WENT TO #1.
YOU THINK IT'S BAD??? IT WENT TO #1!!!!
GIVE MY REGARDS TO BROADSTREET WAS A GREAT MOVIE...ALSO THE SOUNDTRACK WAS GREAT.
ALL OF THOSE BEATLES SONGS HE DID WERE BETTER THAN THE ORIGINAL RECORDINGS.
PRESS TO PLAY WAS A B ALBUM..WITH MANY GREAT TUNE SUCH AS FOOTPRINTS.
MACCA REALLY STARTED TO SHINE BIG TIME WITH FLOWERS IN THE DIRT....1989....AND FROM THERE ON HE RELEASED A GREAT ALBUM AFTER ANOTHER.
OFF THE GROUND, FLAMING PIE, RUN DEVIL RUN, DRIVING RAIN, AND CHAOS.
I CAN SAY THAT MAYBE MCCARTNEY 2 IS THE ONLY SO SO ALBUM THAT MACCA EVER DID.
BUT THE FOLLOWING ALBUMS ARE BETTER THAN ANY OF THE STONESOR BEATLES ALBUMS ...
RAM
BAND ON THE RUN
AT THE SPEED OF SOUND
VENUS AND MARS
BACK TO THE EGG
TUG OR WAR
FLOWERS IN THE DIRT
OFF THE GROUND
FLAMING PIE
DRIVING RAIN
CHAOS
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: deuce (IP Logged)
Date: November 23, 2005 06:40
Dude, your a joke.
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: drbryant (IP Logged)
Date: November 23, 2005 07:13
BUT THE FOLLOWING ALBUMS ARE BETTER THAN ANY OF THE STONESOR BEATLES ALBUMS ...
RAM
BAND ON THE RUN
AT THE SPEED OF SOUND
VENUS AND MARS
BACK TO THE EGG
TUG OR WAR
FLOWERS IN THE DIRT
OFF THE GROUND
FLAMING PIE
DRIVING RAIN
CHAOS
. . . . wow, what a statement. At some point, all credibility is lost. This is that point.
Glad that everyone liked my prior post.
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: ferrante9 (IP Logged)
Date: November 23, 2005 08:39
the cool thing about macca is the every album is different....he doesn't try to use the same formula over and over like the stones, bond jovi etc....
ram is a totally different album than band on the run. speed of sound is different than back to the eggs.
driving rain is different than chaos.
every time he puts out an album, it s got new fresh sound......
that's a sign of an artist.
bigger bang is no different than bridges over babylon.
it's all good......doesn't hurt the stones.
but macca turly is the king of the kings...just because he his so versitile.....he can do different types of music.
mick jagger solo or bono solo would not be as big as mccartney.
macca is now even bigger than elvis, the beatles, wings, and the stones combined!!!!!!
one guy signle handedly taking over everything.
it's just amazing.
john lennon as a solo wasn't as succesful as paul
ringo , geroge were no way near paul
bono would be a buffoon compare to macca
mick would be a true buffoon compare to macca
macca , all by himeself.......made himself bigger than anybody else!!!
just amazing.!!!!!!
i v been to many concerts...and i must admit that macca is the king of hte kings of love shows.
the stones are probably 2nd....but now way near macca!!!!!
Options: Reply To This MessagTalk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Goto Thread: Previous•NextGoto: Forum List•Message List•New Topic•Search•Log In
Goto Page: Previous12345Current Page:5 of 5
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: ferrante9 (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 06:16
buffoon!!!!
let me tell you what's up.
MICK IS A VOCALIST/PERFOMER....HE IS NOT A TRUE MUSICIAN.
TRUE, HE PLAYS GUITAR ON MISS YOU....BUT IS IT REALLY NECESSESARY FOR HIM TO PLAY? IT DOESN'T improve THE SONG, BUT HE IS ONLY HURTING IT. INSTEAD OF HIM PLAYING THE GUITAR, WHY DOESN'T HE DANCE TO THAT SONG....IT D' BE GETTING THE CROWN MORE INVOLVED......
MICK CAN; T PLAY GUITAR FOR SHIT........ASK HIM TO PLAY BLACKBIRD OR JENNY WREN....
MAMMA MIA...
OR ASK KEITH TO PLAY BACKBIRD, OR JENNY WREN........NOT VERY GOOD.
MICK IS A GREAT PERFORMER, AND AN OKAY SINGER....
MACCA IS THE BEST ROCK AND ROLL SINGER FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
EARLY DAYS: KANSAS CITY HEY HEY HEY, LUCILLE, LONT TALL SALLY.
BEATLES MID YEARS: I M DOWN, PAPERBACK WRITER, DRIVE MY CAR
BEATLES PEAK: HELTER SKETLER, BACK IN THE USSR, TAXMAN ( MACCA PLAYS LEAD GUITAR), SGT PEPPERS, THE END, REVOLUTION.
WINGS: LIVE AND LET DIE, JR FARMS, LETTING GO, BEWARE MY LOVE, LET ME ROLL IT, OLD SIAM SIR, SPIT IN ON, VENUS AND MARS/ROCK SHOW.
SOLO: COMING UP, RINSE THE RAINDROP, LONELY ROAD, ABOUT YOU.
THERE YOU GO...THOSE ARE JUST SOME OF THE EXAMPLE OF HOW HARD MACCA CAN ROCK HARDER THAN MICK AND COMPANY.
AND MACCA ROCKS HARDER LIVE THAN THE STONES. YOU COULD ASK ANYONE WHO S BEEN TO BOTH SHOWS...AND THEY LL TELL YOU THAT MACCA PUTS ON A BETTER SHOW. NOT THAT THE STONES DON'T PUT ON A GOOD SHOW...IT'S JUST THAT MACCA IT'S SIMPLE THE KING OF THE KINGS.
AND BY THE WAY.......MACCA IS THE TRUE DEFINITION OF ROCK AND ROLL!!!!!!!
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: J.J.Flash (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 06:19
fartante 9 wrote:
>MAMMA MIA...
OR ASK KEITH TO PLAY BACKBIRD, OR JENNY WREN........NOT VERY GOOD
why would he want to, they both suck! i can whistle for 4 minutes, yeah i'm playing blackbird!
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: ferrante9 (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 06:25
YOU CAN ONLY WISTLE BECAUSE YOU CAN'T PLAY GUITAR!!!!
BUFFOON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: country honk (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 06:59
Mamma mia, macca mia, blabla mia......
Ferannnnnnttttteeeeeeeeeeee.....
"YOU CAN ONLY WISTLE BECAUSE YOU CAN'T PLAY GUITAR!!!! "
Most of us have a much better musical understanding than you have.....
Macca is the most overrated stupid, that has ever been.... he is pop singer, not a rock singer..... just face it.......
Mamma miaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa......
Seems like you should have some hearing aid......
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: camper88 (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 07:01
mr edward Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let the thread be. Ferrante is getting way more
> attention than he or his opinions deserve.
>
> regards, mr edward
Amen, Mr. Edward.
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: ferrante9 (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 07:05
pop my ass.....
buffoon see?
macca is the multy musical talent....
he can pop: silly love song, my brave face
he can country: i v just seen a face
he can country rock: friends to go
he can rock: i m down, paperback writer
and can hard rock: let me roll it, live and let die
he can heavy metal: helter skelter
he can be piano man: maybe i m amazed, hey jude
m jackson is the king of pop
elvis is the king of rocke and roll
stones are the best rock and roll band in the world
MACCA IS THE KING OF THE KINGS IN MUSIC!!!!!!!
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: country honk (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 07:22
Pop ny ass....
Your musical understanding is in your asss...... mamma miiiiiiiaaaaaaaa....
You said Macca sings better than Elvis...... try to listen to In the Ghetto, Burning Love..... Has Macca ever sung like that - never?????
Macca is the king of greedines, stupidity...... not music, he is plain and simple pop musician.....
Mamma miiiiiaaaaaaa
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: Hairball (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 07:35
ferrante9 wrote:
"MACCA IS THE BEST ROCK AND ROLL SINGER FOR THE
FOLLOWING REASONS:...REVOLUTION."
Wrong. Revolution is sung by John Lennon.
And earlier you cite Pauls vocals on Because. Wrong again, thats John Lennon.
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: ferrante9 (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 07:44
WHO PLAYS GUITAR ??? MACCA
BECAUSE WERE ALL 4 BEATLES SINGINGING.
HAVE YOU LISTENED TO RUN DEVIL RUN??? PLENTY OF ELVIS S SONGS' ON THERE AND MADE THEM BETTER........
MACCA IS THE ROCK AND ROLL ICON.
I MEAN..THE GUY IS SO VERSATILE...AND HE CAN ROCK AND ROLL THE BEST..HE CAN POP, HE CAN DO CLASSICAL, ROCK, HARD ROCK, HEAVY METAL...
PLUS HE IS THE KING OF LIVE PERFORMANCES.....DID YOU SEE LAST' YEAR'S SUPEBOWL???
MAMMA MIA....
WHAT ABOUT CONCERT FOR NEW YORK????
MACCA IS TRULY THE KING OF THE KINGS IN MUSIC!!!!
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: LA FORUM (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 11:31
ferrante9 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pop my ass.....
>
>
> buffoon see?
>
>
> macca is the multy musical talent....
>
> he can pop: silly love song, my brave face
>
> he can country: i v just seen a face
>
> he can country rock: friends to go
>
> he can rock: i m down, paperback writer
>
> and can hard rock: let me roll it, live and let
> die
>
> he can heavy metal: helter skelter
>
>
> he can be piano man: maybe i m amazed, hey jude
>
>
>
> m jackson is the king of pop
> elvis is the king of rocke and roll
> stones are the best rock and roll band in the
> world
>
> MACCA IS THE KING OF THE KINGS IN MUSIC!!!!!!!
Don't be so strict! You live with straights who tell you you is king. Jackson is not king of pop, he is queen of the childway.
and Ay ay baby it hurts
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: drbryant (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 11:59
No one in popular music history ever had the talent that Paul McCartney had at the age of 21. And no one, and I mean NO ONE, ever betrayed those gifts the way that Paul did in the 15 years following the break up of the Beatles. Slipshod lyrics, unproduced, unfinished song bites, derivative melodies -- "product" of such astoundingly poor quality that even to this day, there are only two possible explanations: (i) a complete contempt for his audience, or (ii) a carelessness with his finished recordings that over the course of many years, resulted in his simply forgetting how to make good music. At the age of 21, Paul's gifts were so amazing that even today, one can only look back in disbelief -- listen to early Beatles work, especially the Hard Day's Night CD -- the melodies on Paul's tunes are uniformly memorable, the lyrics were complete and realized, and as for his vocals -- there simply hasn't been a more versatile voice in popular music before, or since. We watched him mature in 7 years from 64-70, honing his craft, developing as a truly influential bassist, always looking for new sounds, constantly taking risks. Listening to Paul's work in the 15 years following the breakup is painful -- aside from two legitimate, incredible efforts, 1973's Band on the Run, and 1981's Tug of War, there is alot of catchy, but disposable pop and some horrendous missteps, Wild Life, McCartney II, Back to the Egg and Press to Play, for example, are so bad that if it were not Paul McCartney, no record lable would have released them. In 1984, of course, he released one of the worst movies ever made, and filled the soundtrack with second-rate versions of his Beatles hits. There isn't one decent track on any of those albums, and combined, they probably represent 7 years worth of his work (or as long as the Beatles were recording). Initially, he traded on the goodwill he had from being a Beatle, and his records sold well. By the end of the seventies, the party was over, and neither critics nor former fans were about to give him the benefit of the doubt. He struggled to rediscover his talents, and his work since Broad Street has been decent, albeit uneven and largely forgotten. The gift for melody seems long gone, and his singing has become mannered, almost painful to listen to. He tries very hard to please nowadays, playing a live show that is meticulously planned (every move, every comment appears rehearsed), and trades heavily on the initial 7 years of his career. It's fun to watch in the same way that a Broadway musical is fun to watch -- you can admire the craft and the effort, but there's little reason to see it twice. Check McCartney fan boards -- since nothing changes from show-to-show, the main topic seems to be how many times he plays the refrain from I'll follow the Sun, or whether he made "significant eye contact" with a particular fan.
It's ridiculous to compare, but I honestly don't think that Mick would claim to have had the talent that Paul had. However, what he did have was a core group of guys (KR, CW, BW, BJ, MT, Ronnie and Stu) that were and remain committed to being a solid R&B combo, and every 3 years or so, they re-emerge to remind everyone that they are the world's greatest rock and roll band. Mick and his band have, with a few odd detours, remained true to their muse, The result is a much more consistent body of work -- nothing the Stones have done comes close to the disaster of McCartney II or the Broad Street film. And, I should add, they remain (despite the carping from all the people on iorr.org, rs.com, or shidoobee) the world's greatest rock and roll band.
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: Erik_Snow (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 12:14
That was a very well-written post!
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: LA FORUM (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 12:24
Well written post yes but I dont hink his singing voice was very good in the beginning compared to John. When he "matured" or really got guts in 1968, 1969 he was one of the best singers ever. But, yes, he was a very good singer in the Silver Beatles and on demos from that period.
and Ay ay baby it hurts
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: JumpingKentFlash (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 13:12
Post of the year goes to DrBryant IMO. Great post although I don't agree in Macca's stuff being that bad. But he certainly never held the standard of the Stones (Which has been great all the way through with the exceptions of a few albums in the 80s and two albums in the 60s).
JP: Did you get my mail some days ago???
"Better than suicide"
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: marianna (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 14:08
But wait a minute -- the Stones did a lot of bad music after Exile! Not nearly as bad as Paul McCartney (well, a lot of McCartney), but not all good. All the '60s people declined, Bob Dylan included.
But I love a lot of Paul's things, especially with the Beatles and his earlier solo things. He did a few good things here and there after that, just as the Stones have done some good things, but it doesn't compare to the earlier work. I also love Paul's singing, and he is an excellent rock singer. It's tiresome that people think he suffers in comparison with John. But I wouldn't put Paul or the Beatles ahead of the Stones. It's too bad the Beatles didn't stick it out the way the Stones did, because they really did need each other. I'm glad the Stones never grew up (as John Lennon once put it -- but really, should growing up mean giving up your friends and interests in life?).
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: Hairball (IP Logged)
Date: November 23, 2005 05:16
I was born and raised with the Beatles and the Stones in 1963. They are on equal ground in my mind and always will be.
To compare them is not a part of my vocabulary. It's idiotic as a matter of fact.
But...if we're talking Macca solo over the Stones (or Jagger) or whatever, I'd say Macca is the big loser. He really needed John to help him with the music. Even some of his solo hits (Band On The Run, Jet, etc.) were probably written during his Beatles days.
The proof? Macca's post-'76 solo stuff is a disgrace. Then to top it off, in the early '80's he decides to duet with Michael "Whacko" Jackson. Case closed...the end of it. Paul is the loser.
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: ferrante9 (IP Logged)
Date: November 23, 2005 05:51
BUFFOON SEE?????
WINGS OUTSOLD THE STONES AND THE BEATLES COMBINED.
THEY GOT 7 CONSECUTIVE #1 ALBUMS.
#1 SINGLES LEFT AND RIGHT
BROKE ATTANDANCE RECORD.
WINGS WERE BETTER THAN THE STONES. AND NUMBERS SHOW THAT CLEARLY. MORE PEOPLE BUGHT WINGS RECORDS THAN THEY DID FOR THE STONES AND THE BEATLES COMBINED.
WINGS RELEASED A SERIES OF MASTERPIECES.....BAND ONT HE RUN, VENUS AND MARS, AT THE SPEED OF SOUND, LONDON TOWN, AND BACK TO THE EGG.
MACCA AS A SOLO MANAGED TO WRITE EVEN MORE MASTERPIECES.
EBONY AND IVORY
SAY SAY SAY
SOMEONE WHO CARES
ALSO EVEN ON MACCARTNEY 2...WHICH MANAGED TO REACH #1 IN THE UK AND #2 IN THE US..AND THE SINGLE COMING UP WENT TO #1.
YOU THINK IT'S BAD??? IT WENT TO #1!!!!
GIVE MY REGARDS TO BROADSTREET WAS A GREAT MOVIE...ALSO THE SOUNDTRACK WAS GREAT.
ALL OF THOSE BEATLES SONGS HE DID WERE BETTER THAN THE ORIGINAL RECORDINGS.
PRESS TO PLAY WAS A B ALBUM..WITH MANY GREAT TUNE SUCH AS FOOTPRINTS.
MACCA REALLY STARTED TO SHINE BIG TIME WITH FLOWERS IN THE DIRT....1989....AND FROM THERE ON HE RELEASED A GREAT ALBUM AFTER ANOTHER.
OFF THE GROUND, FLAMING PIE, RUN DEVIL RUN, DRIVING RAIN, AND CHAOS.
I CAN SAY THAT MAYBE MCCARTNEY 2 IS THE ONLY SO SO ALBUM THAT MACCA EVER DID.
BUT THE FOLLOWING ALBUMS ARE BETTER THAN ANY OF THE STONESOR BEATLES ALBUMS ...
RAM
BAND ON THE RUN
AT THE SPEED OF SOUND
VENUS AND MARS
BACK TO THE EGG
TUG OR WAR
FLOWERS IN THE DIRT
OFF THE GROUND
FLAMING PIE
DRIVING RAIN
CHAOS
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: deuce (IP Logged)
Date: November 23, 2005 06:40
Dude, your a joke.
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: drbryant (IP Logged)
Date: November 23, 2005 07:13
BUT THE FOLLOWING ALBUMS ARE BETTER THAN ANY OF THE STONESOR BEATLES ALBUMS ...
RAM
BAND ON THE RUN
AT THE SPEED OF SOUND
VENUS AND MARS
BACK TO THE EGG
TUG OR WAR
FLOWERS IN THE DIRT
OFF THE GROUND
FLAMING PIE
DRIVING RAIN
CHAOS
. . . . wow, what a statement. At some point, all credibility is lost. This is that point.
Glad that everyone liked my prior post.
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: ferrante9 (IP Logged)
Date: November 23, 2005 08:39
the cool thing about macca is the every album is different....he doesn't try to use the same formula over and over like the stones, bond jovi etc....
ram is a totally different album than band on the run. speed of sound is different than back to the eggs.
driving rain is different than chaos.
every time he puts out an album, it s got new fresh sound......
that's a sign of an artist.
bigger bang is no different than bridges over babylon.
it's all good......doesn't hurt the stones.
but macca turly is the king of the kings...just because he his so versitile.....he can do different types of music.
mick jagger solo or bono solo would not be as big as mccartney.
macca is now even bigger than elvis, the beatles, wings, and the stones combined!!!!!!
one guy signle handedly taking over everything.
it's just amazing.
john lennon as a solo wasn't as succesful as paul
ringo , geroge were no way near paul
bono would be a buffoon compare to macca
mick would be a true buffoon compare to macca
macca , all by himeself.......made himself bigger than anybody else!!!
just amazing.!!!!!!
i v been to many concerts...and i must admit that macca is the king of hte kings of love shows.
the stones are probably 2nd....but now way near macca!!!!!
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Goto Page: Previous12345Current Page:5 of 5
Goto: Forum List•Message List•Search•Log InSorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users (Administrator)
BornOnTheBayou, Dan, Fennikel, Manhattan, Meredith Hunter, Per-Arne, René, RoddyD, The Stones, camper88, cc, drbryant, erikjjf, ferrante9, kahoosier, kaskatanas, letitbleed, loving cup, marianna, mickijaggeroo, monkey man, nikkibong, novica, poor immigrant, robbert, robertwaligora, swsfo, tatters, with sssoul
Record Number of Users: 150 on May 10, 2005 19:58
Record Number of Guests: 5 on September 6, 2004 14:39
e•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Goto Page: Previous12345Current Page:5 of 5
Goto: Forum List•Message List•Search•Log InSorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users (Administrator)
BornOnTheBayou, Dan, Fennikel, Manhattan, Meredith Hunter, Per-Arne, René, RoddyD, The Stones, camper88, cc, drbryant, erikjjf, ferrante9, kahoosier, kaskatanas, letitbleed, loving cup, marianna, mickijaggeroo, monkey man, nikkibong, novica, poor immigrant, robbert, robertwaligora, swsfo, tatters, with sssoul
Record Number of Users: 150 on May 10, 2005 19:58
Record Number of Guests: 5 on September 6, 2004 14:39
urrent Page:5 of 5
Goto: Forum List•Message List•Search•Log InSorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users (Administrator)
BornOnTheBayou, Dan, Fennikel, Manhattan, Meredith Hunter, Per-Arne, René, RoddyD, The Stones, camper88, cc, drbryant, erikjjf, ferrante9, kahoosier, kaskatanas, letitbleed, loving cup, marianna, mickijaggeroo, monkey man, nikkibong, novica, poor immigrant, robbert, robertwaligora, swsfo, tatters, with sssoul
Record Number of Users: 150 on May 10, 2005 19:58
Record Number of Guests: 5 on September 6, 2004 14:39
Goto: Forum List•Message List•Search•Log InSorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users (Administrator)
BornOnTheBayou, Dan, Fennikel, Manhattan, Meredith Hunter, Per-Arne, René, RoddyD, The Stones, camper88, cc, drbryant, erikjjf, ferrante9, kahoosier, kaskatanas, letitbleed, loving cup, marianna, mickijaggeroo, monkey man, nikkibong, novica, poor immigrant, robbert, robertwaligora, swsfo, tatters, with sssoul
Record Number of Users: 150 on May 10, 2005 19:58
Record Number of Guests: 5 on September 6, 2004 14:39
st•Search•Log InSorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users (Administrator)
BornOnTheBayou, Dan, Fennikel, Manhattan, Meredith Hunter, Per-Arne, René, RoddyD, The Stones, camper88, cc, drbryant, erikjjf, ferrante9, kahoosier, kaskatanas, letitbleed, loving cup, marianna, mickijaggeroo, monkey man, nikkibong, novica, poor immigrant, robbert, robertwaligora, swsfo, tatters, with sssoul
Record Number of Users: 150 on May 10, 2005 19:58
Record Number of Guests: 5 on September 6, 2004 14:39
Goto: Forum List•Message List•New Topic•Search•My Control Center•Log Out
Preview
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: Manhattan (IP Logged)
Goto: Forum List•Message List•New Topic•Search•Log Out
Goto Page: Previous123Current Page:3 of 3
Re: paul mccarney- most over-rated ever
Posted by: J.J.Flash (IP Logged)
Date: November 23, 2005 02:26
niklas wrote:
>Sorry Sir
i accept ur apology.
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Follow This Thread•Report This Message
Re: paul mccarney- most over-rated everRe: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: Ged Rambler (IP Logged)
Date: November 20, 2005 11:06
Jagger is KING - NO ARGUMENT.
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: farawayeyes2 (IP Logged)
Date: November 20, 2005 12:02
ferrante9 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> macca is the greatest rock and roll singer.
>
macca isn't a singer, and isn't rock'n'roll.
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: sunnybandyo99 (IP Logged)
Date: November 20, 2005 13:34
But Paul's solo album is better than Mick.You gotto agree this
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: JumpingKentFlash (IP Logged)
Date: November 20, 2005 13:40
Macca is the better singer.
Jagger is the utimate frontman singer, and he still packs a cool r 'n r voice.
"Better than suicide"
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: ferrante9 (IP Logged)
Date: November 20, 2005 14:07
macca isn't a singer??? isn't rock and roll???
i can tell you ingornace.
what do you call oh darling??? what do you call helter skelter???
buffoon!!!!!!
mick is fun to watch....he can't dance.......but it's fun to watch a skinny guy do funny moves....that's why people get a kick out of it.
macca is all about the music, all about rock and roll....
you go to his concert...and it's all about the music. rock and roll baby.
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: Rutger (IP Logged)
Date: November 20, 2005 14:15
Paul doesn't do it for me either. I can't get into his voice, it's simply to sweet. Mick isn't the same singer he once was either, but technically he's better than ever. I just don't think there's a comparison here.
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: JumpingKentFlash (IP Logged)
Date: November 20, 2005 14:19
ferrante9 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> what do you call oh darling??? what do you call
> helter skelter???
You really wanna know???
OK.
I call it "Good songs that rock, but is CRAP compared to The Stones rock 'n roll".
That's what I call it mister.
"Better than suicide"
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: country honk (IP Logged)
Date: November 20, 2005 14:33
"what do you call "oh darling"??? "
It is Macca trying to be somehowe a rock musician, but ends up some like a silly tralala singer.... he doens't have the credibity to be a rock musician...
The way he sings those songs, shaking his head, looking with his "ain't I a darling" eyes......
Face the truth - 98% of the time he is basically a pop singer - and he should stick to that, because he is good to write easygoing sing-along songs....
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: mr edward (IP Logged)
Date: November 20, 2005 14:40
rock 'n roll for people who thought elvis was too scary.
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: LA FORUM (IP Logged)
Date: November 20, 2005 14:42
Mick is cool and goodlooking, paul is just, i dunno, paul.
and Ay ay baby it hurts
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: Reptile (IP Logged)
Date: November 20, 2005 14:59
Say ferrante9, maybe you should go back to the McCartney fan forum.
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: deuce (IP Logged)
Date: November 20, 2005 17:05
What's wrong with liking some Macca? I'm the biggest Stones fan you'll ever come across but there are some Paul songs I dig. Mostly with the Beatles, but he's had a few decent solo tunes as well; "Maybe I'm Amazed", "Junior's Farm" - I think it actually stops there. But TONS of great songs with the Beatles. I don't care if they "rock" or not, their just good songs.
Now, he does not hold a candle to Mick Jagger. Mick is the greatest rock and roll performer that has ever lived and it will be a long time before someone takes his crown (if that day even ever comes). Mick's voice is still in strong shape. You can't expect him to sound like he did when he was in his 20's, but you can still easily tell it's Mick Jagger singing.
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: farawayeyes2 (IP Logged)
Date: November 20, 2005 17:18
ferrante9 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> macca isn't a singer??? isn't rock and roll???
>
> i can tell you ingornace.
>
> what do you call oh darling??? what do you call
> helter skelter???
>
>
> buffoon!!!!!!
>
hey darling be cool. i'll never say something offensive about other friends here in this forum. we're here to speak about music, to say our opinion, not to offend each other.
Edited 1 times. Last edit at 11/20/05 17:31 by farawayeyes2.
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: stones_serb (IP Logged)
Date: November 20, 2005 17:32
Both of them are rock and roll legends,people who made it all happen.Without two of them we wouldn't have rock as it has been all these years.They revolutionised the music.
I think that Maca might be in slightly better shape than Mick but it really doesn't matter because both of them are still amazing.
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: harlem shuffle (IP Logged)
Date: November 20, 2005 18:08
well paul hardly dont move on stage,so it,s much easier to sing then.jagger,s working on stage is so much more,you can,t compare them.and paul mccartney is not rock and roll,pop is his trone
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: witterings (IP Logged)
Date: November 20, 2005 18:16
tell your deaf grandmother, but not us !!!!!
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: Edward Twining (IP Logged)
Date: November 20, 2005 19:31
If we're talking purely voice i think McCartney's singing is considerably better.He has lost some of the 'lighter' aspects of his voice - it's now a little lower.On some songs it is noticeable eg Hello Goodbye, Fool On The Hill but on a number of other songs particularly the rockier song there's very little difference. He still does a great Little Richard and still sings whatever tempo of song with a great vitality.
Unfortunately i believe Mick at this period of his career is a long long way behind - just listen to his recent vocals on Sway - they're as flat as a pancake and he also tends to over accentuate badly at times.
Mick and The Stones will always be my favourite band - but lets be honest!
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: Erik_Snow (IP Logged)
Date: November 20, 2005 19:59
I think Micks voice is the only reason of listening to the new "Sway". The arrangement isnt good, but I was amazed how "young" his voice sounds. That he didnt stretch for the high notes is understandable. Mick sounds really good. A lot of the recordings from the 70s, for instance the "rare" tracks from Vancouver 1972, which is appropiate to compare to, isnt that good. The guitars were much better, and the mood were dangerous and irresistable, but the singing aint that good. Micks singing nowdays is the best part of the Rolling Stones´ sound.
(Hope that wasnt a boring post.)
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: Some Girl (IP Logged)
Date: November 20, 2005 21:09
Ah. . . once again, there's Mick Jagger's amazing ability to get as trashed on a Stones board as he would on an "impartial" board... Post this thread on a Macca board and you'd get torn a new @#$%& for even suggesting to compare Macca with Mick but on a Stones board... no. Everyone's desire to be as "objective" as possible (even if they are full of shit) evetually gets the 'Stone' as trashed (or more) as the 'other party'. And, Reptile, LOL, right on.
And the guy who said Macca is in better shape than Mick... oh boy.. Let me predict a "Bono is in better shape than Mick" as a thread that's bound to pop up soon...
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: Reptile (IP Logged)
Date: November 20, 2005 21:20
Buffoon! Hahahahahahahaha! Who uses that word...
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message
Goto Page: Previous12345NextCurrent Page:2 of 5
Goto: Forum List•Message List•Search•Log InSorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users (Administrator)
BornOnTheBayou, Dan, Fennikel, Jed Clever, Manhattan, Meredith Hunter, René, RoddyD, The Stones, camper88, drbryant, erikjjf, ferrante9, kahoosier, kaskatanas, letitbleed, loving cup, marianna, mickijaggeroo, monkey man, nikkibong, novica, poor immigrant, robbert, robertwaligora, swsfo, tatters, with sssoul
Record Number of Users: 150 on May 10, 2005 19:58
Record Number of Guests: 5 on September 6, 2004 14:
Posted by: virgil (IP Logged)
Date: November 23, 2005 02:52
The Stones Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This subject is so tedious and utterly stupid, so
> in order to make it a helluva lot more interesting
> I'll post a few pics of Meg White. Here we go.
> Enjoy!!!
>
>
Who's this Slut.
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Follow This Thread•Report This Message
Re: paul mccarney- most over-rated ever
Posted by: ferrante9 (IP Logged)
Date: November 23, 2005 05:56
EVEN STONES FANS AGREE THAT MACCA SHOWS IS A LOT BETTER.
NUFF SAID!!!
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Follow This Thread•Report This Message
Re: paul mccarney- most over-rated ever
Posted by: BornOnTheBayou (IP Logged)
Date: November 23, 2005 06:41
J.J.Flash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> what has he really done since the beatles broke
> up? very small success with wings, then a 15 year
> lull. I think chapman shot the wrong beatle!
JJ... I'd be very curious as to WHICH BANDS have impressed you over the past 30 years besides the Stones... anyone ?? Since you're obviously not a McCartney fan.
One thing he did do... in 2003 put on one of the most awesome live concerts I've ever attended.
"It's just that demon life has got me in it's sway..."
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Follow This Thread•Report This Message
Re: paul mccarney- most over-rated ever
Posted by: country honk (IP Logged)
Date: November 23, 2005 06:58
"EVEN STONES FANS AGREE THAT MACCA SHOWS IS A LOT BETTER.
NUFF SAID!!!"
Don't agree - have seen Macca and he is the biggest joke ever.....
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Follow This Thread•Report This Message
Re: paul mccarney- most over-rated ever
Posted by: ferrante9 (IP Logged)
Date: November 23, 2005 08:43
you obvously haven't seen him
even a non mccartney fan, after seeim live.......will say that he is the undisputed king of the kings in music.
the stones, witout a set list varation , witout a b stage, would put out an average show.
macca, without a b stage, without a set list varation, still puts out the best show.
immagine if mcca only added a b stage like the stones, and a set list change every night......he 'd be smoking everybody.
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Follow This Thread•Report This Message
Goto Page: Previous123Current Page:3 of 3
Goto: Forum List•Message List•Search•My Control Center•Log OutYour Name: Manhattan
Subject:
Send replies to this thread to me via email
Add my signature to this post.
Online Users (Administrator)
BornOnTheBayou, Dan, Fennikel, Jed Clever, Manhattan, Meredith Hunter, René, RoddyD, The Stones, camper88, drbryant, erikjjf, ferrante9, happyexile, kahoosier, kaskatanas, loving cup, marianna, mariannerl, mickijaggeroo, nikkibong, novica, poor immigrant, robbert, robertwaligora, swsfo, tatters, with sssoul
Record Number of Users: 150 on May 10, 2005 19:58
Record Number of Guests: 5 on September 6, 2004 14:39Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Goto Thread: Previous•NextGoto: Forum List•Message List•New Topic•Search•Log Out
Goto Page: Previous12345Current Page:5 of 5
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: ferrante9 (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 06:16
buffoon!!!!
let me tell you what's up.
MICK IS A VOCALIST/PERFOMER....HE IS NOT A TRUE MUSICIAN.
TRUE, HE PLAYS GUITAR ON MISS YOU....BUT IS IT REALLY NECESSESARY FOR HIM TO PLAY? IT DOESN'T improve THE SONG, BUT HE IS ONLY HURTING IT. INSTEAD OF HIM PLAYING THE GUITAR, WHY DOESN'T HE DANCE TO THAT SONG....IT D' BE GETTING THE CROWN MORE INVOLVED......
MICK CAN; T PLAY GUITAR FOR SHIT........ASK HIM TO PLAY BLACKBIRD OR JENNY WREN....
MAMMA MIA...
OR ASK KEITH TO PLAY BACKBIRD, OR JENNY WREN........NOT VERY GOOD.
MICK IS A GREAT PERFORMER, AND AN OKAY SINGER....
MACCA IS THE BEST ROCK AND ROLL SINGER FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
EARLY DAYS: KANSAS CITY HEY HEY HEY, LUCILLE, LONT TALL SALLY.
BEATLES MID YEARS: I M DOWN, PAPERBACK WRITER, DRIVE MY CAR
BEATLES PEAK: HELTER SKETLER, BACK IN THE USSR, TAXMAN ( MACCA PLAYS LEAD GUITAR), SGT PEPPERS, THE END, REVOLUTION.
WINGS: LIVE AND LET DIE, JR FARMS, LETTING GO, BEWARE MY LOVE, LET ME ROLL IT, OLD SIAM SIR, SPIT IN ON, VENUS AND MARS/ROCK SHOW.
SOLO: COMING UP, RINSE THE RAINDROP, LONELY ROAD, ABOUT YOU.
THERE YOU GO...THOSE ARE JUST SOME OF THE EXAMPLE OF HOW HARD MACCA CAN ROCK HARDER THAN MICK AND COMPANY.
AND MACCA ROCKS HARDER LIVE THAN THE STONES. YOU COULD ASK ANYONE WHO S BEEN TO BOTH SHOWS...AND THEY LL TELL YOU THAT MACCA PUTS ON A BETTER SHOW. NOT THAT THE STONES DON'T PUT ON A GOOD SHOW...IT'S JUST THAT MACCA IT'S SIMPLE THE KING OF THE KINGS.
AND BY THE WAY.......MACCA IS THE TRUE DEFINITION OF ROCK AND ROLL!!!!!!!
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Follow This Thread•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: J.J.Flash (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 06:19
fartante 9 wrote:
>MAMMA MIA...
OR ASK KEITH TO PLAY BACKBIRD, OR JENNY WREN........NOT VERY GOOD
why would he want to, they both suck! i can whistle for 4 minutes, yeah i'm playing blackbird!
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Follow This Thread•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: ferrante9 (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 06:25
YOU CAN ONLY WISTLE BECAUSE YOU CAN'T PLAY GUITAR!!!!
BUFFOON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Follow This Thread•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: country honk (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 06:59
Mamma mia, macca mia, blabla mia......
Ferannnnnnttttteeeeeeeeeeee.....
"YOU CAN ONLY WISTLE BECAUSE YOU CAN'T PLAY GUITAR!!!! "
Most of us have a much better musical understanding than you have.....
Macca is the most overrated stupid, that has ever been.... he is pop singer, not a rock singer..... just face it.......
Mamma miaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa......
Seems like you should have some hearing aid......
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Follow This Thread•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: camper88 (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 07:01
mr edward Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let the thread be. Ferrante is getting way more
> attention than he or his opinions deserve.
>
> regards, mr edward
Amen, Mr. Edward.
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Follow This Thread•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: ferrante9 (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 07:05
pop my ass.....
buffoon see?
macca is the multy musical talent....
he can pop: silly love song, my brave face
he can country: i v just seen a face
he can country rock: friends to go
he can rock: i m down, paperback writer
and can hard rock: let me roll it, live and let die
he can heavy metal: helter skelter
he can be piano man: maybe i m amazed, hey jude
m jackson is the king of pop
elvis is the king of rocke and roll
stones are the best rock and roll band in the world
MACCA IS THE KING OF THE KINGS IN MUSIC!!!!!!!
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Follow This Thread•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: country honk (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 07:22
Pop ny ass....
Your musical understanding is in your asss...... mamma miiiiiiiaaaaaaaa....
You said Macca sings better than Elvis...... try to listen to In the Ghetto, Burning Love..... Has Macca ever sung like that - never?????
Macca is the king of greedines, stupidity...... not music, he is plain and simple pop musician.....
Mamma miiiiiaaaaaaa
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Follow This Thread•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: Hairball (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 07:35
ferrante9 wrote:
"MACCA IS THE BEST ROCK AND ROLL SINGER FOR THE
FOLLOWING REASONS:...REVOLUTION."
Wrong. Revolution is sung by John Lennon.
And earlier you cite Pauls vocals on Because. Wrong again, thats John Lennon.
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Follow This Thread•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: ferrante9 (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 07:44
WHO PLAYS GUITAR ??? MACCA
BECAUSE WERE ALL 4 BEATLES SINGINGING.
HAVE YOU LISTENED TO RUN DEVIL RUN??? PLENTY OF ELVIS S SONGS' ON THERE AND MADE THEM BETTER........
MACCA IS THE ROCK AND ROLL ICON.
I MEAN..THE GUY IS SO VERSATILE...AND HE CAN ROCK AND ROLL THE BEST..HE CAN POP, HE CAN DO CLASSICAL, ROCK, HARD ROCK, HEAVY METAL...
PLUS HE IS THE KING OF LIVE PERFORMANCES.....DID YOU SEE LAST' YEAR'S SUPEBOWL???
MAMMA MIA....
WHAT ABOUT CONCERT FOR NEW YORK????
MACCA IS TRULY THE KING OF THE KINGS IN MUSIC!!!!
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Follow This Thread•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: LA FORUM (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 11:31
ferrante9 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pop my ass.....
>
>
> buffoon see?
>
>
> macca is the multy musical talent....
>
> he can pop: silly love song, my brave face
>
> he can country: i v just seen a face
>
> he can country rock: friends to go
>
> he can rock: i m down, paperback writer
>
> and can hard rock: let me roll it, live and let
> die
>
> he can heavy metal: helter skelter
>
>
> he can be piano man: maybe i m amazed, hey jude
>
>
>
> m jackson is the king of pop
> elvis is the king of rocke and roll
> stones are the best rock and roll band in the
> world
>
> MACCA IS THE KING OF THE KINGS IN MUSIC!!!!!!!
Don't be so strict! You live with straights who tell you you is king. Jackson is not king of pop, he is queen of the childway.
and Ay ay baby it hurts
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Follow This Thread•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: drbryant (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 11:59
No one in popular music history ever had the talent that Paul McCartney had at the age of 21. And no one, and I mean NO ONE, ever betrayed those gifts the way that Paul did in the 15 years following the break up of the Beatles. Slipshod lyrics, unproduced, unfinished song bites, derivative melodies -- "product" of such astoundingly poor quality that even to this day, there are only two possible explanations: (i) a complete contempt for his audience, or (ii) a carelessness with his finished recordings that over the course of many years, resulted in his simply forgetting how to make good music. At the age of 21, Paul's gifts were so amazing that even today, one can only look back in disbelief -- listen to early Beatles work, especially the Hard Day's Night CD -- the melodies on Paul's tunes are uniformly memorable, the lyrics were complete and realized, and as for his vocals -- there simply hasn't been a more versatile voice in popular music before, or since. We watched him mature in 7 years from 64-70, honing his craft, developing as a truly influential bassist, always looking for new sounds, constantly taking risks. Listening to Paul's work in the 15 years following the breakup is painful -- aside from two legitimate, incredible efforts, 1973's Band on the Run, and 1981's Tug of War, there is alot of catchy, but disposable pop and some horrendous missteps, Wild Life, McCartney II, Back to the Egg and Press to Play, for example, are so bad that if it were not Paul McCartney, no record lable would have released them. In 1984, of course, he released one of the worst movies ever made, and filled the soundtrack with second-rate versions of his Beatles hits. There isn't one decent track on any of those albums, and combined, they probably represent 7 years worth of his work (or as long as the Beatles were recording). Initially, he traded on the goodwill he had from being a Beatle, and his records sold well. By the end of the seventies, the party was over, and neither critics nor former fans were about to give him the benefit of the doubt. He struggled to rediscover his talents, and his work since Broad Street has been decent, albeit uneven and largely forgotten. The gift for melody seems long gone, and his singing has become mannered, almost painful to listen to. He tries very hard to please nowadays, playing a live show that is meticulously planned (every move, every comment appears rehearsed), and trades heavily on the initial 7 years of his career. It's fun to watch in the same way that a Broadway musical is fun to watch -- you can admire the craft and the effort, but there's little reason to see it twice. Check McCartney fan boards -- since nothing changes from show-to-show, the main topic seems to be how many times he plays the refrain from I'll follow the Sun, or whether he made "significant eye contact" with a particular fan.
It's ridiculous to compare, but I honestly don't think that Mick would claim to have had the talent that Paul had. However, what he did have was a core group of guys (KR, CW, BW, BJ, MT, Ronnie and Stu) that were and remain committed to being a solid R&B combo, and every 3 years or so, they re-emerge to remind everyone that they are the world's greatest rock and roll band. Mick and his band have, with a few odd detours, remained true to their muse, The result is a much more consistent body of work -- nothing the Stones have done comes close to the disaster of McCartney II or the Broad Street film. And, I should add, they remain (despite the carping from all the people on iorr.org, rs.com, or shidoobee) the world's greatest rock and roll band.
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Follow This Thread•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: Erik_Snow (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 12:14
That was a very well-written post!
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Follow This Thread•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: LA FORUM (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 12:24
Well written post yes but I dont hink his singing voice was very good in the beginning compared to John. When he "matured" or really got guts in 1968, 1969 he was one of the best singers ever. But, yes, he was a very good singer in the Silver Beatles and on demos from that period.
and Ay ay baby it hurts
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Follow This Thread•Report This Message
Re: Paul vs Mick
Posted by: JumpingKentFlash (IP Logged)
Date: November 22, 2005 13:12
Post of the year goes to DrBryant IMO. Great post although I don't agree in Macca's stuff being that bad. But he certainly never held the standard of the Stones (Which has been great all the way through with the exceptions of a few albums in the 80s and two albums in the 60s).
JP: Did you get my mail some days ago???
"Better than suicide"
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Follow This Thread•Report This Message
Re: paul mccarney- most over-rated ever
Posted by:
J.J.Flash
()
Date: November 23, 2005 20:24
bayou wrote:
>JJ... I'd be very curious as to WHICH BANDS have impressed you over the past 30 years besides the Stones... anyone ?? Since you're obviously not a McCartney fan
who,animals,john lennon,kinks,zztop,ac/dc,hendrix,wolf,hooker,hopkins,bbking
>JJ... I'd be very curious as to WHICH BANDS have impressed you over the past 30 years besides the Stones... anyone ?? Since you're obviously not a McCartney fan
who,animals,john lennon,kinks,zztop,ac/dc,hendrix,wolf,hooker,hopkins,bbking
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
georgelicks , HollywoodStone , Jbeckerfan , kstones79 , mariano , Quique-stone , rbarnes00 , shawnriffhard1
Guests:
1514
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10