Beatle Paul vs Solo Paul

Discussions related to Paul as a Beatle.

Moderator: Mike

Postby Brains » Tue Oct 07, 2003 9:21 am

He lost some of his accent along the way, or at least it changed... In the 60s and 70s it was much more obvious that he was form Liverpool than it is now.
Brains
Bronze member
Bronze member
 
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2002 4:46 pm
Location: Netherlands

Postby Maestri09 » Tue Oct 07, 2003 12:14 pm

the only way I can rationalize it, is that the aura only came when the beatles performed *together* (and perhaps, the girls' cheering that went along with them)in the midst of the mania. I just got the full concert of the Beatles in Japan 1966, and I was actually excited to see all of them together, all of them doing their quirky stuff on stage (john especially) and paul shouting "RINGO!!"
User avatar
Maestri09
Bronze member
Bronze member
 
Posts: 562
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 1:49 am
Location: Japan ATM

Postby Cologne girl » Wed Oct 08, 2003 6:45 pm

quote:Originally posted by Harry
Yeah I think when he was in the Beatles there was an aura about him but when he went solo you couldn't feel that aura anymore but then again I was always get goosebumps when I watch WOA.


I think part of what made WOA so great was the part Denny had in it. He was "allowed" to make several contributions of his own, either songs written or at least co-written by himself or at least the lead vocals. He could also show his qualities as a performer, dress up and whatever else goes with that, and that really helped create the feel (and the appeal) of a band. For some reason, a real band will nearly always have more appeal than a solo artist with some backing group. Maybe it's the "polarity" or "antagonism" or whatever it may be called (there surely is a better term for that) between the two (or more) front persons. In the Beatles, it was mostly John and Paul. It has been pointed out more than once that John was quite clever and wise precisely in not insisting in always taking the lead, but allowing another great personality to stand out beside him, which was one important reason for the huge success of the group.
User avatar
Cologne girl
Supporter
Supporter
 
Posts: 2205
Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 8:16 pm
Location: Far Far Away

Postby Ghavi » Wed Oct 08, 2003 9:39 pm

Yes...Danny is very good (but he´s not john). Jimmy is grat 1° guitar (but he´s not george). Joe is a fine drummer (but he´s not ringo)... You know, the only one is Paul...for me Wings was always The Beatles without the 75% of the geniality... still a UltraMagnificSuper band but only a 25% of what the beatles was sometime...
Thats why i say that Paul is a Genious he probed in all his solo career but the 4 beatles together playing and making records is something that happend one in 1000000000 ligth years...[:D](maybe more)
Ghavi
Jr. Member
Jr. Member
 
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 10:47 pm
Location: Iceland

Postby Berkeleyan » Thu Oct 09, 2003 7:39 am

In the early 70´s Paul was certainly much more upfront and vocal about WINGS and himself, not the Beatles. He wanted to make it big on "his own", with his band (plus his wife) and avoided Beatle issues whenever he could. After "Band on the Run" he got his full confidence back and with success to the brim he felt it would be just fine to talk freely about the Beatles again.

IMHO anyway...[:)]
User avatar
Berkeleyan
Gold member :)
Gold member :)
 
Posts: 2906
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2003 9:14 am
Location: Brazil

Postby theDingle » Thu Oct 09, 2003 8:57 pm

I agree, Berks, in that it was partly a confidence issue, and it was also partly caution.

He had to really watch what he said after the Beatle break-up, because the media was ready to crucify him for just the slightest inference or inflection.
User avatar
theDingle
Gold member :)
Gold member :)
 
Posts: 2539
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2003 1:32 pm
Location: USA

Postby Berkeleyan » Mon Oct 13, 2003 6:50 am

Yes, I suppose caution and what was best for him played a major role - in the mid 70's the media started spreading the word on a (possible) Beatles reunion. The topic became a monster topic, having been blown out of proportion and spreading around like fire on dried up pine trees. So I guess Paul had to choose between: (a) NOT saying anything and showing himself "blase" and unsympatethic to that "cause", thus getting bad press in the process, (b)showing his clear approval on such musical reunion or or (c) simply saying that was possible. He chose the last one, thus he got "the best of both worlds" - "acceptance" from the press and from his fellow Beatle mates (instead of criticism/put downs).
User avatar
Berkeleyan
Gold member :)
Gold member :)
 
Posts: 2906
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2003 9:14 am
Location: Brazil

Postby Maestri09 » Mon Oct 13, 2003 11:28 am

I think there were also legal implications concerning Northern Songs/ATV that weren't resolved until the mid 70's ('75 I think).
User avatar
Maestri09
Bronze member
Bronze member
 
Posts: 562
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 1:49 am
Location: Japan ATM

Postby megs » Mon Oct 13, 2003 12:08 pm

quote:Originally posted by theDingle
...erm, YIKES!

If I'm confusing you, steve-O, then this all might end up making sense to megs!....and THAT would confuse ME!, lol! [B)][xx(][:D]
it makes sense[:D]
User avatar
megs
Supporter
Supporter
 
Posts: 5136
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 9:28 am
Location: USA...near Boston

Postby Berkeleyan » Tue Oct 14, 2003 8:02 am

Very funny (and logical) exchanges [:D][:D] !!
User avatar
Berkeleyan
Gold member :)
Gold member :)
 
Posts: 2906
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2003 9:14 am
Location: Brazil

PreviousNext

Return to Paul as a Beatle

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests