mr h atom wrote:chris... brutha, please explain to me...'cause i must really behind the times. how laz's comments, like that last post, repeated as often as they are, do not qualify for the tremulous golden sphincteritis award every bit as much as you think maccafans does..?
when have either of us ever said wings HAD to be in before anybody else ever got in?
when did the requirements for 1) being a member of an actual band or 2) being capable of consideration to be nominated/inducted rely on how much, what percentage of work a 'fan' percieves you did, 30 years down the line ?
and we know exactly that how ?
how about ALL of paragraph 3..just which 'facts' in there are not worthy of your scorn or derision?
sounds like another 'mccartney is a failure' rant to me...yet, you attack maccafan for having the exuberant audacity to like the stuff
and that same, full rant repeats itself again...not with any facts of what actually bands are, but just opinions of which would, if used as a yardstick by any honest person, leave a large part of the RRHOF out of contention: half your bands are one lead guy and a BAND of back up guys, adding thier distinct stylings...why is that 'fact' so hard to understand..and why should wings be held to a higher, different standard
laz: there is absolutley nothing in my quote that is untrue..the only pretzel logic is that shite you feel you need to keep sloughing off...explain to me how an artist, if he leaves one band, creates another (seperate, different, distinct) band, with its own set of songs, its own image and its own fanbase, might not, upon becoming a success in its own right, have an attempt at getting, upon meeting the requirements, its own chance at a nomination...tell it to cream, derek & the dominoes...
sorry you can't deal with the 'fact' that mccartney started another 'band', with a distinct identity, that it became successful... that it was neither a devious marketing ploy, nor a shield or a crutch to escape the beatles (which, now that you put it that way, considering how successful they were, means that they HAD to be a seperate entity, and a rather sturdy one, in order to be a 'crutch' or a 'shield': thus further cementing thier reputation as a band, worthy of recognition as such
and, no, mark paul was the leader of wings...just as r. smith is the leader of the cure, as michael stipe is the leader of rem, or j. fogarty the leader of creedence: take that artist out, and what you get may or may not be successful, but it ain't what it was...so, your point is...right, just like half (or more) of the groups out there, wings had a creative leader, so..sue 'em, but IT DOES NOT MAKE THEM NOT A BAND !
some people around here wouldn't give macca credit if he shat bricks: it's all be some egotistical con..or better yet, half of you would strenuosly argue that it was at least better than his last album !
awes, you continue to amaze me with your newfound levelheadedness, good points, but...by understanding those points, it still leaves out the very basic fact that the whole thread is not about what the critics think, so who the phook cares...it's about what we fans think about what juber said...you spent way too much capital dissing all the band members, especially juber, to drop down into the, ' i blame it on the critics ' schtick now.
from your intitial, constantly derisive dissing of all wings band members, we now get laz bleating on about how almost all bands are NOT bands, but meer lackeys for the talents of such as jeff lynne or tom petty...unless, of course, they can PROVE what percentage of effort they put into each song/album/concert/group effort: 'cause we all know, the only way you can be a 'band' is if you hit all those mythical percentages..if not, you're not a band, right ?
no bands, eh...all back up !?
news to me
Disregard for a moment all the bands that have got in, when there's only one member that contributed to 90% or more of the material.
Cause that's what I was doing.
The statistical facts remain (not made-up, look here on macca-central.com);
Paul McCartney is credited as writing 97% or more of the Wings catalog.
p.s: for the final time, I never said, nor has anybody, that the other members of these bands were mere talentless lackeys...
that's made-up bullshit your trying to use to discredit our argument, and it's beneath civilized discussion.