|
Post by Perplexed on Nov 24, 2003 18:05:48 GMT
Many great points, all well taken. Thanks again.
|
|
|
Post by TheWarmGun on Nov 24, 2003 19:22:09 GMT
Personally I believe you guys are just filling in the gaps with rhetorical statements that can't be truly disproven on either side... I'd rather not believe everyone than to believe in anyone, I don't think everything about Paul and the Beatles can be explained and concluded by anyone's superior knowledge they all claim to have... for instance backlogs can't be paul's or the other side passing it as truth that they must be... who knows.
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Nov 25, 2003 5:55:12 GMT
Personally I believe you guys are just filling in the gaps with rhetorical statements that can't be truly disproven on either side... I'd rather not believe everyone than to believe in anyone, I don't think everything about Paul and the Beatles can be explained and concluded by anyone's superior knowledge they all claim to have... for instance backlogs can't be paul's or the other side passing it as truth that they must be... who knows. An acknowledged perspective, to be sure. BUT, threads of speculation which "can't be truly disproven on either side" for our purposes, bear inspection and analysis. By their very nature of non-proveability, ideas and INFORMED speculation are important to exploring all facets of this topic, which is (lest we forget) PID. Imagine modern science or higher education, for that matter, throwing up it's hands and saying, "this can't be proved or disproved, so the hell with it!" The world would be a lesser place to dwell, aye?
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Nov 25, 2003 6:54:25 GMT
Archaeologists are in a similar bind, now, aren't they?
"Yes, but they are professionally trained and they are the true knowers of knowledge...and without the proper channels to become an expert you can no nothing......." etc Many of us feel there may be a bigger picture. We are exploring. After viewing and listening a lot------there are things.
Like an archeaologist in the dirt, raking away at 10,000 years of soil deposits, we may find a dinosaur tooth or two. They've got full scale models based on items that small in the Smithsonian.
|
|
|
Post by gm1276 on Jan 23, 2004 17:20:20 GMT
Just reached a big conclusion on Paul vs. John's solo careers and why people use Paul's as evidence of a "Faul." First, you have to remember that Paul's first albums were excellent pieces of work, it's only been over time that his solo career was discredited. but PAUL REACHED HIS PEAK IN 1965-1966, writing without a doubt two of his best songs, Yesterday and Elanor Rigby, and then going on to write Let it be, etc later on, along with his stunning output at the beginning of his solo career. HOWEVER, JOHN, especially after 66, never contributed quite as much as he had previously, and never really put out those amazing songs that have become loved by all, such as Imagine. So maybe it was just a case of John reaching his peak at a later date. And also, people don't realize that Paul has had 23 more years than John did to screw up and spoil part of his legacy.
|
|