Raw deal

[Liam OSM]

Personally, if Paul McCartney and Elton John recorded together, I would be thrilled - they are two of my favourite songwriters and musicians, and I love a very large amount of their stuff. Maybe they haven't worked together because it might feel too gimmicky - because of how big they both are, everyone would be disappointed if the results were anything less than spectacular.

The difference between genius and insanity is merely the difference between success and failure.

[shinestar]

John may have done a world tour for Double Fantasy if he hadn't died. If Ringo and Paul performed together, it would be seen as some sort of Beatles reunion and I don't think either want that. Paul did not break up the Beatles, nor did Yoko/Linda - it was TIME. They'd grown up and each had their own work to do and the band got in the way. Paul wanted to cling to the band since he is terminally insecure no matter how successful. Maybe that's his "torture", eh? If he were more interested in writing lyrics or as interested as he is in melodies, he would be a better lyricist. It's not that he's not good at it, he doesn't care whereas John cared more about lyrics than melody. That's one of the things that made them a good team. True, the Beatles were greater than each one of them - that's why I never had a favorite Beatle. John was a sarcastic wiseass, Ringo insisted he was "just the drummer", George took forever to answer a question then told you everything you wanted to know all concise and succint, Paul talked a lot in his smarmy way and said nothing until interviewed by Cameron Crowe in Rolling Stone after the Beatles split.

[shorty]

First and foremost anyone who dies in there prime can by no means of there own, becomes a martyr. They can do no wrong in the eye's of fans because they were cut such a raw deal. But the truth is that paul carried the wieght of all of that. No one realized that john would have made the same mistakes had he lived longer. that's what neil young meant when he said "it's better to burn out, then to fade away". John burnt out while he was still shining bright, while paul may get to fade away. Not to us anyway, but to the rest of the world that's how it is. Everyone got the raw deal here.

so long see ya never

[shinestar]

Shorty, you are soooo right!!

[JettRyder]

Whenever a rock celebrity has died, it almost always accounted for the popularity propulsion of their music.
When John Lennon died, his album "Double Fantasy" suddenly shot up the charts. Same thing happened with Roy Orbison, Rick Nelson, and others that I don't recollect right now.
I don't see a "raw deal" issue. Paul McCartney is one of the most beloved musicians in the business not to mention one of the richest. He has complete freedom with respect to his musical creativity. He can pretty much write what he wants and get it packaged and marketed. In my opinion, not too many musicians can do whatever they please in the market and get away with it.
I also do not see John as a martyr. A martyr is someone who suffers or sacrifices for a cause or principle. John was an unfortunate victim of circumstance. One that he didn't have any control over.

[Liam OSM]

I agree with what you're saying, JettRyder - death does ensure a chart-topper. It happened with John - and George now - and Freddie Mercury and whoever else . . .

All I was saying is that the general public don't appreciate Paul's musical talent quite as much as they should. Of course WE do, but your average person on the street will praise Lennon more because he's dead. A bit like a lot of people will have trouble remembering the other members of Queen, aside from Freddie Mercury, because his death was such an event. And I don't mean that in a happy way - hell, no! Queen are one of my fave bands!

But some of these big names tend to be getting ignored nowadays, I am saying. Look at Paul's last album . . .

The difference between genius and insanity is merely the difference between success and failure.

[JettRyder]

The general public not appreciating Paul...whoooaaa...don't get me started about the general public.....
Oh yeah...when it comes to the general public...I get pretty cynical. The general public appears to be satisfied with the recycled classic rock staples that a radio station has in their 50 cd library or the top 40 crap that is marketed to the younger "pepsi" generation.
That's why I listen only to Internet radio broadcasts so I can hear new music by McCartney, Moody Blues, Midnight Oil, Mellencamp as well as new talent such as Shannon McNally, John Mayer, Peter Yorn, and Coldplay.
I don't understand the general public's acceptance of the "homogenized" radio in our society. (as well as the homogenizing of other business and industries)

[Liam OSM]

Precisely. Not to put too fine a point on it, the average "good" song of today would never stand up to even the average "average" song of ten years ago. You'll find maybe two songs a year now that will stand the test of time, but that's about it.

The difference between genius and insanity is merely the difference between success and failure.

[scrodfish256]

I don't even bother listening to the radio anymore. I pretty much just download off the internet and burn cd's. I will listen to a classic rock station every once in a while, but it's always the same songs over and over. I can only take so much boston and the same old zepplin tunes (they never play the good ones) before I want to smash my car stereo.

[Ram1]

Scrod, I'm the exact same way. Some people I know talk about these new bands that are out, and I'm like "Who?" It's because I hardly ever listen to modern rock radio anymore. It's very rare. I used to be up on every single new band that came out, now I could care less. 97% of the new rock out it absolutely horrible. Whenever I DO listen to the radio now, I listen to classic rock as well. But even then, I too get sick of THAT because they play the same songs over and over and over again.