Log In
Register
8.52pm
26 January 2017
Offline
To respond to the OP, after the release of Pure McCartney, it really puts into perspective the awesome career Paul had. Ram is one of my favorite albums of all time, although I’m not sure if it competes with All Things Must Pass . That’s probably the best of all the solo albums.
"The pump don't work cause the vandals took the handles!"
-Bob Dylan, Subterranean Homesick Blues
"We could ride and surf together while our love would grow"
-Brian Wilson, Surfer Girl
9.04pm
1 November 2013
Offline
although my sentence was still relevant, as it was written about Julian.
Ya but it was Paul who from what I’ve read, had a better relationship with Julian than John did.
The following people thank Starr Shine? for this post:
Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^<
7.50am
Members
18 March 2013
Offline 
For me:
Music Wise:
1. George, obviously, no competition
2. John, it’s tough to choose between him and Paul for 2nd place but I definitely listen to John more and I would rank my favourite John albums over my favourite Paul albums so…
3. Paul, he’s had a pretty solid career overall with some amazing albums but I just prefer a bit more grit to my music hence why John beat him, sorry Paul.
4. Ringo- oh bless, I think that’s all I have to say.
Personality Wise:
1. George- I’ll be a George girl ’til the day I die I think. I always admired George and his trying to stand on his own two feet as a solo artist and not reverting back to being ‘Beatle George’, like when he rejected being in Give My Regards To Broad Street (smart move George, smart move). He had some rough patches and he definitely wasn’t a perfect person but I’ve always respected him and always will, I think.
2. Paul- Paul while he was/is a bit of a tosser as regards trying to almost outshine John in the Lennon-McCartney partnership and some of his business decisions (jeez man if you wanted The Beatles’ catalogue so much, you could have outbid Michael Jackson, you had the money >.>). He does seem like a good guy with his family relations and the public so he gets 2nd place.
3. Ringo- while he did go a bit mad in the ’70s/’80s and he refuses to sign autographs anymore (fans made you what you are Ringo, don’t forget that), he does seem like a nice guy at the base of it all.
4. John- He is probably the most complicated Beatle out of them all. He was a funny guy and all I have to do is watch one minute of an interview with him and he’ll have me cracking up but the guy was a bit of a hypocritical (dare I say it) ass. He treated Julian horrendously and never properly supported Cyn financially so she struggled to put Julian through school. The man had millions and couldn’t even throw a couple of thousand to his ex-wife, that and the fact that he sung about having no possessions while being filmed inside his massive mansion. Sure John sure. I do still love his music though but man his personality makes him hard to like.
The following people thank AppleScruffJunior for this post:
Beatlebug, WeepingAtlasCedars
INTROVERTS UNITE! Separately....in your own homes!
***
Make Love, Not Wardrobes!
***
"Stop throwing jelly beans at me"- George Harrison
8.56am
6 July 2016
Offline ….never properly supported Cyn financially so she struggled to put Julian through school.
Julian went to a fee paying public school so I think struggled might be the wrong word.
Pivotal Moments in Beatles History No.118: Yoko helps herself to one of George's digestives.
9.11am
Members
18 March 2013
Offline Leppo said
….never properly supported Cyn financially so she struggled to put Julian through school.
Julian went to a fee paying public school so I think struggled might be the wrong word.
I think being the child of a celebrity would be very difficult to be in a state-run school because you’d have people taking the piss out of you whereas if you went to a private school you’d be surrounded by politicians’ kids and whatnot, people who had some idea of what it was like to have a wealthy/famous person as a parent.
Paul sent his kids to a state-run school and they said the bullying was atrocious just because people were jealous of/didn’t like their dad.
The fact that Julian was sent to a fee-paying school shouldn’t even matter, his father more or less abandoned him for years while he went and increased his fortune in New York and talked about peace and love while he never even saw his own son nor seemed to even care about him until later in his life.
I think this quote by Julian sums up his relationship with his father: There seems to be far more pictures of me and Paul playing together at that age than there are pictures of me and my dad.
The following people thank AppleScruffJunior for this post:
Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^<, WeepingAtlasCedars
INTROVERTS UNITE! Separately....in your own homes!
***
Make Love, Not Wardrobes!
***
"Stop throwing jelly beans at me"- George Harrison
3.30pm
27 March 2015
Offline
AppleScruffJunior said
2. Paul- Paul while he was/is a bit of a tosser as regards trying to almost outshine John in the Lennon-McCartney partnership
Are you saying Paul should have ‘dumbed down’ musically, settled for fewer of lower quality songs just so he wouldn’t ‘outshine’ John? Would it have been okay for John to outshine Paul? If so, why?
It’s not Paul’s fault that John preferred getting drugged out of his mind and getting involved in Yoko’s projects to keep up as a songwriter in the latter years of the Beatles. John and Paul had a sibling rivalry going on from day one; that’s what made the Beatles so great. By trying to outdo each other, they kept raising the bar. You can’t hold it against Paul that John checked out. You just can’t. It’d be unreasonable to expect that from someone like Paul, who eats, drinks, and breathes music.
Formerly Known As JPM-Fangirl --
2016
'Out There' - 07-06-2015 - Ziggo Dome Amsterdam -- 'One On One' - 12-06-2016 - Pinkpop Festival Landgraaf
4.12pm
Members
18 March 2013
Offline Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^< said
AppleScruffJunior said
2. Paul- Paul while he was/is a bit of a tosser as regards trying to almost outshine John in the Lennon-McCartney partnership
Are you saying Paul should have ‘dumbed down’ musically, settled for fewer of lower quality songs just so he wouldn’t ‘outshine’ John? Would it have been okay for John to outshine Paul? If so, why?
It’s not Paul’s fault that John preferred getting drugged out of his mind and getting involved in Yoko’s projects to keep up as a songwriter in the latter years of the Beatles. John and Paul had a sibling rivalry going on from day one; that’s what made the Beatles so great. By trying to outdo each other, they kept raising the bar. You can’t hold it against Paul that John checked out. You just can’t. It’d be unreasonable to expect that from someone like Paul, who eats, drinks, and breathes music.
Oh I don’t mean it in that way, I love Paul’s Beatle music.
I was talking about (probably should have explained myself better, apologies) when Paul tried to get the credits switched on the songs that he wrote so ‘Eleanor Rigby ‘ would be written by McCartney/Lennon instead of Lennon/McCartney, such a silly, little thing that he had to make a big deal over.
I love Paul’s music, majority of my favourite Beatle songs are written by him in fact.
The following people thank AppleScruffJunior for this post:
Beatlebug
INTROVERTS UNITE! Separately....in your own homes!
***
Make Love, Not Wardrobes!
***
"Stop throwing jelly beans at me"- George Harrison
4.41pm
5 November 2011
Offline Leppo said
You previously said “I wasn’t solely basing my order off of their music. I also factored in who they were/are as human beings.” so it is relevant to this conversation.
Honestly, I’m not really aware of issues Richard had other than being an alcoholic, but I don’t feel that lessens his worth as a human being, since he got himself help before it was too late.
The other three went through the same things and they all ended up being dads to their children.
Yes but they were within the same relationships whereas John and Cynthia had split and joined new relationships which creates more complications regarding access.
The other thing to consider is the social impact of John’s parents not being there for him and it is a sad fact that the result is that these things do go in cycles. I’m sure he still provided for Julian. I just think you are judging him too harshly.
Being divorced from Cyn is no excuse for him to have abandoned his son, especially since Cynthia never tried to keep Julian from John or his family.
It is true that those things go in cycles, but they don’t have to. I may be making this up, but I think I remember seeing a quote by Julian once that said he didn’t have kids because he was afraid he would end up being the dad John was to him. Very sad.
sgtpepper63 said
Forgot Paul wrote it (should’ve guessed that considering he sang it), although my sentence was still relevant, as it was written about Julian. Also, I forgot to say, but John didn’t neglect Julian and if John Jr. (kind of stupid that he named him after himself even though he didn’t even make it) wasn’t dead on arrival, I bet John wouldn’t have neglected him either.
You said in one post that John did abandon Julian, but now you are saying he didn’t neglect him? Did you mean to put Sean? And who is John Jr.? Is that the baby him and Yoko lost? If so that is kind of strange he would name that child John since that is also Julian’s first name (John Charles Julian Lennon). He was a good dad to Sean, but that does not make up for what he did to Julian. Towards the end of his life, though, it seems that he was trying to reconnect with Julian. It is just sad that John died so early, as I think John and Julian could have more strongly reconnected with more time, and then Julian also might not still have so much resentment for his father.
All living things must abide by the laws of the shape they inhabit
4.45pm
5 November 2011
Offline AppleScruffJunior said
Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^< said
AppleScruffJunior said
2. Paul- Paul while he was/is a bit of a tosser as regards trying to almost outshine John in the Lennon-McCartney partnership
Are you saying Paul should have ‘dumbed down’ musically, settled for fewer of lower quality songs just so he wouldn’t ‘outshine’ John? Would it have been okay for John to outshine Paul? If so, why?
It’s not Paul’s fault that John preferred getting drugged out of his mind and getting involved in Yoko’s projects to keep up as a songwriter in the latter years of the Beatles. John and Paul had a sibling rivalry going on from day one; that’s what made the Beatles so great. By trying to outdo each other, they kept raising the bar. You can’t hold it against Paul that John checked out. You just can’t. It’d be unreasonable to expect that from someone like Paul, who eats, drinks, and breathes music.
I was talking about (probably should have explained myself better, apologies) when Paul tried to get the credits switched on the songs that he wrote so ‘Eleanor Rigby ‘ would be written by McCartney/Lennon instead of Lennon/McCartney, such a silly, little thing that he had to make a big deal over.
I love Paul’s music, majority of my favourite Beatle songs are written by him in fact.
Honestly, I thought you were talking about when Paul was secretly buying shares to the music that him and John lost.
I can never understand why people don’t like that Paul wanted to change the credits on some of the Lennon-McCartney songs that were solely written by Paul. It’s not like he was taking John’s name off the songs. I agree that it is a silly little thing, but Paul really gets bashed for it.
The following people thank Little Piggy Dragonguy for this post:
Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^<All living things must abide by the laws of the shape they inhabit
5.45pm
18 May 2016
Offline Little Piggy Dragonguy said
You said in one post that John did abandon Julian, but now you are saying he didn’t neglect him? Did you mean to put Sean? And who is John Jr.? Is that the baby him and Yoko lost? If so that is kind of strange he would name that child John since that is also Julian’s first name (John Charles Julian Lennon). He was a good dad to Sean, but that does not make up for what he did to Julian. Towards the end of his life, though, it seems that he was trying to reconnect with Julian. It is just sad that John died so early, as I think John and Julian could have more strongly reconnected with more time, and then Julian also might not still have so much resentment for his father.
I meant Sean, I must’ve said Julian by mistake. I never knew Julian’s first name was John. Here’s the source that says the stillborn’s name was John Jr.:
The following people thank sgtpepper63 for this post:
Little Piggy Dragonguy2.13am
27 March 2015
Offline MAppleScruffJunior said
I was talking about (probably should have explained myself better, apologies) when Paul tried to get the credits switched on the songs that he wrote so ‘Eleanor Rigby ‘ would be written by McCartney/Lennon instead of Lennon/McCartney, such a silly, little thing that he had to make a big deal over.
I think it’s not Paul who makes a big deal of it. You’re the one ranking him lower in part because of those song credits, right? Seems to me outsiders (fans, media, what have you) are the ones really making a stink of it.
I can easily turn this around. Was John trying to outshine Paul on those hundreds of LenMac songs? Well actually, we know for a fact that he was, since he went out of his way to ensure his name was first. So, why is it such a horrible thing for Paul to want his name first on his solo efforts? John wouldn’t have minded. Though he wanted his name first in the early days, he also stated that the credits could be changed at any time, for any reason. And what about those first singles? Those were credited McCartney-Lennon. Another power play by Paul, even though they barely knew how song credits worked at the time?
No, it wasn’t Paul who made a big deal of it. If Yoko had agreed, most of us wouldn’t even be aware of it. But she didn’t, and she made a fuss about it, which then backfired on Paul who, admittedly, continued to defend himself when he probably just should have Let It Be right then and there.
I think the true reason people are holding it against him, though, is because of John’s death. Which wasn’t Paul’s fault. And in my opinion, he shouldn’t be expected to forever keep his mouth shut about those times he drew the short straw. How fair is it to censor Paul, who already does a stellar job of censoring himself to the point of people calling him insincere, just because his best mate is no longer with us?
The following people thank Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^< for this post:
Little Piggy Dragonguy, BeatlebugFormerly Known As JPM-Fangirl -- 2016
'Out There' - 07-06-2015 - Ziggo Dome Amsterdam -- 'One On One' - 12-06-2016 - Pinkpop Festival Landgraaf
1 Guest(s)