Dante Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 u2 sold out a long time ago. beatles are just plain tired and boring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 u2 sold out a long time ago. beatles are just plain tired and boring. 602367[/snapback] Please don't equate McCartney with The Beatles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 beatles are just plain tired and boring. 602367[/snapback] Yeah really, they're not half as good as they once were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 u2 sold out a long time ago. beatles are just plain tired and boring. 602367[/snapback] That may be true, but 100 years from now, people will still know who the Beatles were...not so sure you could say that about any pop music act of the last 50 years, outside of Dylan, the Stones, Elvis, Sinatra and maybe, Michael Jackson...it's all been done before, by somebody else...people will always know "Yesterday", but will they be humming "Zooropa" in the future? McCartney's music ceased to be relevent around 1974, but what he did up to that time earns him the right to be the most arrogant a-hole he chooses to be. Nowadays, acts come out of the box as arrogant a-holes, pre-fabricated pretentious, rarely acknowledging how un-original they are (where would "indie-rock" be without the Velvet Underground?), because they likely have no clue as to how unoriginal they are. Easy to pick on the old geezers, but at least they did something to earn a "greatest hits" package! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 That may be true, but 100 years from now, people will still know who the Beatles were...not so sure you could say that about any pop music act of the last 50 years, outside of Dylan, the Stones, Elvis, Sinatra and maybe, Michael Jackson...it's all been done before, by somebody else...people will always know "Yesterday", but will they be humming "Zooropa" in the future? McCartney's music ceased to be relevent around 1974, but what he did up to that time earns him the right to be the most arrogant a-hole he chooses to be. Nowadays, acts come out of the box as arrogant a-holes, pre-fabricated pretentious, rarely acknowledging how un-original they are (where would "indie-rock" be without the Velvet Underground?), because they likely have no clue as to how unoriginal they are. Easy to pick on the old geezers, but at least they did something to earn a "greatest hits" package! 602384[/snapback] Mostly spot-on. I would argue that everything McCartney did that was relevant, was with John Lennon and the Beatles. I will NEVER take that away from him. But, solo, he was as dissapointing as Stevie Winwood solo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 The Beatles are the greatest band of all time and I cannot wait- March 18 I will be in Liverpool paying homage to them. As for Paul Mccartney I am indebted to him for appearing at concert for NYC when other performers were scared of terrorism. Paul Mccartney at Red Square is a great DVD which really explains the significance of the Beatles to eastern Europe and the old Soviet Union. I have also seen the John Lennon wall in Prague- classic passive resistance. Paul Mccartney is aok in my book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 beatles are just plain tired and boring. 602367[/snapback] Care to enlighten us as to what you find fresh and exciting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokinandjokin Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 U2...BIG TIME overrated. But, McCartney just sucks. 601605[/snapback] I don't think U2 is necessarily overrated, but I don't personally care for them. I am the furthest thing from a McCartney fan. Both Bono and Sir Paul are active politically. But if they are really working to end world poverty, why are they charging $450 a ticket??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 I don't think U2 is necessarily overrated, but I don't personally care for them. I am the furthest thing from a McCartney fan. Both Bono and Sir Paul are active politically. But if they are really working to end world poverty, why are they charging $450 a ticket??? 602805[/snapback] Bono is a jackass. he criticized the Canadian government for not giving enough aid to end world hunger. I'm sick of these celebrities acting like they are the new Mother Teresa's of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokinandjokin Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Bono is a jackass. he criticized the Canadian government for not giving enough aid to end world hunger. 602891[/snapback] Bono may be a jackass, but you Canadians are worthless. The world is appreciative of your generous paper exports. At least an African child can write "I'm starving" on a nice piece of processed Canadian lumber. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Bono may be a jackass, but you Canadians are worthless. The world is appreciative of your genorous paper exports. At least an African child can write "I'm starving" on a nice piece of processed Canadian lumber. 602908[/snapback] uh? honestly i have no idea how much Canada donates to the rest of the world but I doubt we're on the bottom of the list. And i think americans can be appreciative of the cheap hydro power we provide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 uh?honestly i have no idea how much Canada donates to the rest of the world but I doubt we're on the bottom of the list. And i think americans can be appreciative of the cheap hydro power we provide. 602921[/snapback] The power is provided by Niagara Falls, NEW YORK...no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 The power is provided by Niagara Falls, NEW YORK...no? 602926[/snapback] no im talking about the power that hydro quebec sells to the US remember the massive power failure in NYC a couple of years back that Bush blamed on Canada? And I think all Hydro electric power in that area is run by Hydro Quebec. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted February 14, 2006 Author Share Posted February 14, 2006 Bono may be a jackass, but you Canadians are worthless. 602908[/snapback] Canada did give us Neil Young though. Neil Young > U2 + Macca Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Canada did give us Neil Young though. Neil Young > U2 + Macca 602979[/snapback] You got that right, Rico. They also gave us The Band. nuff said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 You got that right, Rico. They also gave us The Band. nuff said 602980[/snapback] we also gave you elisa cuthbert lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted February 14, 2006 Author Share Posted February 14, 2006 You got that right, Rico. They also gave us The Band. nuff said 602980[/snapback] Dylan + The Band > Neil Young > U2 + Macca Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 we also gave you elisa cuthbert lol 603053[/snapback] That does make up for a lot. wow.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokinandjokin Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Canada did give us Neil Young though. Neil Young > U2 + Macca 602979[/snapback] Truuuuuue!!!! Just downloaded a big batch of Neil and CSN&Y tunes last night. we also gave you elisa cuthbert lol I take back everything I said about Canada. She makes my pants shrink. Also, in my humble opinion, every Elisa Cuthbert reference should include the mandatory hyperlink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stinky finger Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 That may be true, but 100 years from now, people will still know who the Beatles were...not so sure you could say that about any pop music act of the last 50 years, outside of Dylan, the Stones, Elvis, Sinatra and maybe, Michael Jackson...it's all been done before, by somebody else...people will always know "Yesterday", but will they be humming "Zooropa" in the future? McCartney's music ceased to be relevent around 1974, but what he did up to that time earns him the right to be the most arrogant a-hole he chooses to be. Nowadays, acts come out of the box as arrogant a-holes, pre-fabricated pretentious, rarely acknowledging how un-original they are (where would "indie-rock" be without the Velvet Underground?), because they likely have no clue as to how unoriginal they are. Easy to pick on the old geezers, but at least they did something to earn a "greatest hits" package! 602384[/snapback] Nice post. And oh-so-true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts