Actually the frog song was one of my favourites when I was 5 years old, and I understand that it was children it was directly aimed at, thus a very good song in that respect. In fact some of the first songs I ever knew were Macca compositions ...Yellow Submarine, With A Little Help From My Friends, When Im 64 etc.

Whilst I admire macca's versatility (he also wrote Helter Skelter lets not forget), it makes him such an easy target for music snobs. I know it shouldnt bother me but it does. I just wish he'd use his head a little more when he comes to releasing new albums (as I wish Prince would in some repects).

I don't understand how anyone can say that Paul McCartney sucks. He is a living musical icon and he has co-written some of the best songs and melodies of the past 35 years. I agree that he might be past his prime, but he can still play and sing. He deserves props for his continuous contributions to music. Even if you are not a fan or were never a Beatles fan, I can't see how anyone in their right mind could say that he or the Beatles suck. It's just plain ridiculous. In fact, Prince could learn a think or two from Sir Paul.

Supernova said:

Actually six if you count Robin Williams

TheResistor said:

William Morris and Creative Artists are two of the biggest talent agencies in the biz. They pretty much work like managers--handling promotions, publicity, bookings, etc. in conjunction with other services often. Clear Channel is catchin up though.

It's cool to look at the list of agencies and see P repped by Paisley Park Enterprises. They have had their bumps and bruises along the way, but glad to see him independently repped by himself. Still on his own terms.

In that vein, he's probably the highest ranking performer on that list represented by himself with no outside talent management.

Cool.
.
[This message was edited Wed Jan 8 13:14:30 PST 2003 by NuPwrSoul]

Agreed. Prince certainly should feel proud of what he's acheived over the past couple of years. Lets face it, he's never been the most business minded of people, all those god awful side projects with relitavely talentless protegees,and various other projects which were made then never released.

I have to admit I felt a little let down by him through 1996-2000. After finally breaking contract he seemed to be wasting his new found freedom, but with the NPGMC, The Rainbow Children & ONA, and his first decent world wide tour in years, he really has turned a corner now, and done so cutting out all the middle men.

He can hopefully build on this to finally start getting his singles and albums back in the charts again.

This may explain why some people are not too impressed by McCartney or the Beatles. I Googled this post up from a couple years ago in a Beatles newsgroup:

For those of us who are true students of the Beatles music, one of the first
things we did when we became serious about collecting was to seek out the
original versions of songs the Beatles covered...or at least the versions
that influenced the Beatles. They weren't always one and the same. If you'
ve ever heard the Isley Brothers' version of "Twist and Shout" or Chuck
Berry's recording of "Roll Over Beethoven" or the Larry Williams' single of
"Slow Down," it's easy to understand the Beatles' affection for '50's R&B.
Over the years, Lennon and Harrison in particular have paid homage in
interviews to these early pioneers of rock music. McCartney, on the other
hand, like Yoko, is not really the type of person who pays homage to other
artists. The genius of the Beatles, of course, is that they were able to
take songs by other artists and essentially make them their own. The songs
that immediately come to mind are "Please Mr. Postman", "Money" and "Long
Tall Sally"..all of which blow away the originals.

But what about the more subtle instances in which the Beatles "covered"
other artists? I refer here to those Lennon & McCartney and Harrison
compositions which frankly owe their genesis to other artists..some of whom
aren't nearly as well-remembered or revered as a Chuck Berry or a Little
Richard. Yes, the Beatles did indeed steal ideas from other artists. And
before ya'all start with the flame throwing, keep in mind that Lennon
himself admitted as much in his later interviews, although he always used
the word "pinched," which is the British slang equivalent of "stole".

For instance, some of you probably know that "Do You Want to Know a Secret"
was a direct rip-off of a song sung by Snow White in the Disney movie...and
that "Run for Your Life" owes its origin to Elvis' recording of "Baby, Let's
Play House". But there's much more. George's ethereal guitar riff in "If I
Needed Someone" was taken almost directly from the Byrds' "Bells of Rhymney"
.

And then there's Lennon's million-selling single "I Feel Fine" which at the
time..despite the trite, throwback lyrics..boasted one of the most
imaginative and innovative guitar riffs up to that time. Or so we thought.
Wrong. John sheepishly admitted once in an interview that it was a direct
rip-off of the riff in Bobby Parker's "Watch Your Step". If you've ever
heard Parker's recording, you can't help wondering how John escaped a
lawsuit. I suppose the explanation is that Bobby Parker was.even at that
time..a fairly obscure R&B artist, so that no one even realized it.

Of course, the Beatles didn't always manage to escape lawsuits. Lennon's
"Come Together" crossed that fine line between "borrowing" and
"plagiarizing"..in this case from Chuck Berry's "You Can't Catch Me". Same
with Harrison's "My Sweet Lord" which upset to no end the publishers of the
Chiffons' "He's So Fine".

I wonder if anyone in this newsgroup can identify the other instances of
songs the Beatles "pinched". If not, I will post a "Part 2" on this
subject...assuming there's any interest in it.


---
Google Home - Advertise with Us - Search Solutions - Services & Tools - Jobs, Press, & Help

©2003 Google

All of the Beatles have always admitted that without the likes of Elvis, Little Richard, Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, they wouldnt have been the group they were. I dont think mimicking the odd guitar riff, or melody constitutes mass plagiarism (all artists...even Prince...do this) and if youre trying to infer that the Beatles made a career out of ripping off others, youre obviously ignoring the innovations they made in studio production, particularly on Rubber Soul / Revolver / Sgt Pepper.

The fact of the matter is, none of them were the "best" musicians, although Harrison and McCartney could lay claim to developing imense personally styles in the guitar and bass, and only McCartney had an exceptional voice (and it was exceptional). What made the Beatles the force they were was a combination of things.

But at the end of the day, in McCartney and Lennon, they had two of the greatest songwriters ever. Most of their songs were individual efforts, not the co-writes the credits would have you believe, and hey did have an influence on pretty much everyone i popular music. Simple as.

The Beatles mimicked, nicked, and pinched from countless artists. Their studio "innovations" were pinched from The Beach Boys' Brian Wilson.

The Beatles nicked and pinched from those who came before them and then were rewarded with riches and fame far beyond the people they stole from.

What the Beatles did (pinched) is nothing different from what every other musician has done, including Prince.

don't get it twisted...

I am not saying that McCartney has not his place in music history. But this topic is about Concert Tours, right?
So if we speak about concerts and the quality of performance/musicians I do not see that McCartney should be ahead of P. In fact nobody is better than him.

'Cuz I said so!

To be blunt, Paul did better than Prince because he has more fans and he has a huge record company behind him and being "better" is a matter of opinion. I do like Prince better than Paul, but I am the minority.

Batdance, its true that Pet Sounds was an influence on Revolver and Pepper...McCartney admitted so, but Brian Wilson himself has admitted, Rubber Soul changed the way he viewed music, and was a direct influence on Pet Sounds. He has also said that Let It Be is his favourite album of all time (god only knows why) so I dont think you can say "all" their studio innovations were pinched from B Wilson.

As for comparing Prince and McCartney, its daft, as they're artists of different eras and styles. Pauls career was tailing off, just as Princes was starting, and no one...no one would argue that Prince is a better performer than Paul as that's clear as daylight.

What they both are however is blessed with an incredible musical gift,the legacy of which will live on longer than any one of us. I love both artists for very different reasons and wouldnt be drawn into choosing who' "better" as its totally subjective.

Well, as we all know, the true measure of success or failure in any artistic endeavor, musical or otherwise, can be measured in dollars, right?

For the life of me, I can't understand why people sweat this stuff so much.

lovemachine said:

I've thought the same thing myself. I think Prince could reach and reclaim a lot of his original fans (from the late 70's & early 80's) if he'd come down on the price of a concert ticket. I know a lot of people who love Prince but don't have the necessary bills for a typical Prince concert. I realize he's a excellent and talented musician, but hey let's xpand a little. Lower prices, more fans, more money.

I'm sorry, but I can say that I truly think the Beatles and Paul McCartney suck. I know I am in a HUGE minority here, and everyone has a right to like whatever they want, but I find their music inane and annoying.

Anyone remember "Freedom" performed at the 9/11 tribute show? That has to be among the worst songs the Beatles or any of their members did. Overtly cheesy, not inspirational, and sophomoric lyrically, it disgusts me!