|
| Headline | Comparison....The Beatles Music or Paul Simon? |
|
Page:
[1] [2] [3] [4] |
| Author | Comment |
Lynn
Sep-04-2005, 16:35 GMT
IP:
USA - United Staates America
 | I´ve heard a few of songs from McCartney´s new album "Chaos and Creation in the Back Yard" and you won´t believe your ears. I think Paul S. will like it too. There´s a lot more depth to all the songs, plus the melodies and structures are more thought out. It sounds like a Beatles album without the other three (if you know what I mean?). I have a feeling this album and Paul Simon´s next album will be one of their best. |
| | |
Fandosh
Sep-06-2005, 01:17 GMT
IP:
Czech Republik
 | I maybe angry many people here... I like Beatles, of course, but listen the records, these are only records of the past. If I discovery two songs recorded same year. BoTW and Let it be... both are play with piano, both are romantic,BUT Beatles use easy melodie, SG use very comlicadet melodie with very clever harmony,it sounds over timely. Beatles have music for more people,if you can listen Paul´s songs, you must be patient. Beatles are like "Barbie" (very nice, cool..., but it´s doll max. for one year). |
| | |
ivalo
Sep-06-2005, 12:40 GMT
IP:
Finland
 | Bridge Over Troubled Water is both better song and an album than Let It Be but we must remember that The Beatles did quite complicated music as well. I wouldn´t compare The Beatles to Barbie... |
| | |
Guido
Sep-07-2005, 16:13 GMT
IP:
Italy
 | Imagine for a while that this is a Beatles forum...
Some one starts a thread about comparing Fab4 to Simon and Garfunkel. Then the comparison goes on to Paul and Paul...
Some (probably most of the people there...) would surely say that Simon and Garfunkel were ok, but Paul Simon has only done minor works after the split up (-I am NOT saying this, I am just trying to guess what the conversation could be there...). It would be quite irritating, for us, isn´t it?
I fear that this sort of comparisons is not very useful. McCartney has written wonderful melodies. Surely, Simon is a better lyricist, but Macca wrote great music, has a great taste for music (Simon has a great consideration of him: he had McCarntey listening to the tapes of Graceland before writing lyrics... and he once said that Artie´s taste in music is comparable only to McCartney´s...), is a style defining bass player, very prolific. I take my hat off in front of him and no, the beatles are not a Barbie (no matter how successful Barbie is! :-)). |
| | |
Alain
Sep-08-2005, 08:45 GMT
IP:
France
 | I think that The Beatles at the beginning did not matter of the lyrics. The first texts were simplistics. When Dylan wrote "The times they are a´changing" and Paul "SOS" , "He Was My Brother" or "A Church Is Burning"...the Beatles wrote "she loves you" "I wanna be your man" or "i want to hold your hand" etc... not really the same contents.
Paul always polishes his texts (and his music).the Beatles made super rock´n rolls or songs to dance with great music and with lyrics easy to remember.
both are genius but not in the same way
|
| | |
Bluesmoke
Sep-08-2005, 21:55 GMT
IP:
Italy
| People, you must remember that the Beatles came up with one of the most succesful sounds and song forms ever!
And I have 3 words for you...THE WHITE ALBUM.
Amen. |
| | |
Fandosh
Sep-08-2005, 22:36 GMT
IP:
Czech Republik
| BEATLES:Melodies-great,lyric-I must say,they are same like public (folclore) lyric (not complicadet, but tidy). I think Twist and shoud is the best rock song. It´s shame, that B. doesn´t exist now (two man are dead). But I insist on "Barbie"-and the reasom? Barbie is best to know of the world,is great doll for children,but when you are older, you must only smile,when you sey this doll. I don´t say, that B. are "shit"-NO they´re great!But they´ve got songs and shit-songs too. Sorry of my vulgar words and sorry to all B.fans. It´s only my opinion. |
| | |
|
Page:
[1] [2] [3] [4]
|