Paul McCartney - The REAL King of Pop? - Music Banter Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > The Music Forums > Pop
Register Blogging Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-13-2011, 08:10 PM   #101 (permalink)
The Sexual Intellectual
 
Urban Hat€monger ?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere cooler than you
Posts: 18,605
Default

I assume this discussion went from being about McCartney vs Bowie to The Beatles vs Bowie because everybody realised it was futile trying to imagine McCartney's solo stuff & Wings to be anywhere near as good as anything Bowie put out.
__________________



Urb's RYM Stuff

Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.
Urban Hat€monger ? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2011, 08:13 PM   #102 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
[MERIT]'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Missouri, USA
Posts: 4,814
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger View Post
I assume this discussion went from being about McCartney vs Bowie to The Beatles vs Bowie because everybody realised it was futile trying to imagine McCartney's solo stuff & Wings to be anywhere near as good as anything Bowie put out.
Possibly, but it would be hard to crown McCartney the "King Of Pop" whist only considering his work with the Beatles, and none of his solo/side work. If you're going to disregard that and only focus on his days with The Beatles, Lennon would be just as big a candidate for the crown as McCartney.
[MERIT] is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2011, 09:16 PM   #103 (permalink)
Divination
 
Necromancer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,655
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oojay View Post
Possibly, but it would be hard to crown McCartney the "King Of Pop" whist only considering his work with the Beatles, and none of his solo/side work. If you're going to disregard that and only focus on his days with The Beatles, Lennon would be just as big a candidate for the crown as McCartney.
Lionel Richie also, as a solo artist anyway in my opinion, especially as a songwriter. But I am in no way comparing or putting him on the same level as Lennon or Bowie as music icons.
Necromancer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2011, 11:12 PM   #104 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Lord Dweedle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 127
Default

MTV Named Jacksons death more Tragic than Lennons so its safe to say Micheal stays the king
Lord Dweedle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2011, 11:41 PM   #105 (permalink)
Live by the Sword
 
Howard the Duck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Posts: 9,075
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by djchameleon View Post
that's so not true!

yes Bowie was a bit more flamboyant but The Beatles were just as much about image as he was. They are specifically remember for those matching bowl hair cuts they had
i'm having one now, actually ha ha ha
__________________


Malaise is THE dominant human predilection.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Virgin View Post
what? i don't understand you. farming is for vegetables, not for meat. if ou disagree with a farming practice, you disagree on a vegetable. unless you have a different definition of farming.
Howard the Duck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2011, 11:51 PM   #106 (permalink)
carpe musicam
 
Neapolitan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Les Barricades Mystérieuses
Posts: 7,707
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier View Post
Because loads of bands looked like the Beatles, but nobody ever quite looked like Bowie and went through the amount of image changes that he did. Regardless of his music, Bowie has always been very image driven and probably the most image driven artist in the history of rock.
Just because people imitated The Beatles and (to you) hardly anyone if not no one imitated Bowie doesn't refute what I said about The Beatles having an image. You even go on and talk about their image.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier View Post
I see your point but there is still a big difference in the images being projected here. The Beatles image was seen as being trendy and generally accepted as being a popular fad. Whereas, Bowie`s image was decadent and and androgynous, and parents didn`t want their kids coming home looking like that
You are equating flamboyancy with image, well anything can be an image, Heavy Metal gangsta rap, or whatever genre you can bring up - have some kind of image.

Quote:
Originally Posted by starrynight View Post
That was part of what I was thinking. Rock is as much about image as pop, in some ways maybe much more so. Bowie was seen to epitomise the glam scene and established himself as much because of his image as because of the music. There is plenty of good music in the 70s but most of them never had the image and fame Bowie had.
Elton John, P-Funk?

Quote:
Originally Posted by starrynight View Post
I don't think The Beatles were as much about image. That's shown in that they changed quite a bit through the 60s, they are not remembered specifically for certain costumes, makeup or a kind of attitude like Bowie is. He even made up names for himself like Ziggy Stardust and became them in concert.
Yeah exactly, they were constantly changing their image.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by mord View Post
Actually, I like you a lot, Nea. That's why I treat you like ****. It's the MB way.

"it counts in our hearts" ?ºº?
“I have nothing to offer anybody, except my own confusion.” Jack Kerouac.
“If one listens to the wrong kind of music, he will become the wrong kind of person.” Aristotle.
"If you tried to give Rock and Roll another name, you might call it 'Chuck Berry'." John Lennon
"I look for ambiguity when I'm writing because life is ambiguous." Keith Richards
Neapolitan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2011, 02:11 AM   #107 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 937
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger View Post
I assume this discussion went from being about McCartney vs Bowie to The Beatles vs Bowie because everybody realised it was futile trying to imagine McCartney's solo stuff & Wings to be anywhere near as good as anything Bowie put out.
Much of McCartney's stuff with The Beatles is basically solo stuff anyway, so I don't see much difference. Apart from the first hits they had many of Lennon's and McCartney's songs were largely wrote separately from each other.
__________________
non-cliquey member of every music forum I participate on
starrynight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2011, 02:18 AM   #108 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 937
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Necromancer View Post
Lionel Richie also, as a solo artist anyway in my opinion, especially as a songwriter. But I am in no way comparing or putting him on the same level as Lennon or Bowie as music icons.
Although I like some of his music I'm not sure he's really really produced as many good songs across the decades as McCartney. Icons? Yes that is about image, and most rock musicians depend on image, attitude, flamboyancy to make themselves cool to the young audience.

And Neapolitan asks about other good stuff in the 70s? Well singer-songwriters were much less about having a big iconic image (Elton John being the exception). Then of course there are other things like disco, the start of new wave/punk, progressive music, classical/experimental music, jazz. Lots of good 70s music.
__________________
non-cliquey member of every music forum I participate on
starrynight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2011, 03:33 AM   #109 (permalink)
Live by the Sword
 
Howard the Duck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Posts: 9,075
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger View Post
I assume this discussion went from being about McCartney vs Bowie to The Beatles vs Bowie because everybody realised it was futile trying to imagine McCartney's solo stuff & Wings to be anywhere near as good as anything Bowie put out.
dear God, sir! have you heard Tonight? Black Tie White Noise? Pin-Ups? Young Americans? Earthling?

Macca's worst are better than those
__________________


Malaise is THE dominant human predilection.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Virgin View Post
what? i don't understand you. farming is for vegetables, not for meat. if ou disagree with a farming practice, you disagree on a vegetable. unless you have a different definition of farming.
Howard the Duck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2011, 03:56 AM   #110 (permalink)
Horribly Creative
 
Unknown Soldier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London, The Big Smoke
Posts: 8,265
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan View Post
Just because people imitated The Beatles and (to you) hardly anyone if not no one imitated Bowie doesn't refute what I said about The Beatles having an image. You even go on and talk about their image.

You are equating flamboyancy with image, well anything can be an image, Heavy Metal gangsta rap, or whatever genre you can bring up - have some kind of image.
:
You`re making stuff up now, I`ve never once stated that no one ever imitated Bowie For the record as is common knowledge, Bowie is one of the most influential artists ever both visually and musically. He basically single-handedly started off the glam rock movement in the early seventies and the new romantic movement in the eighties.

Flamboyancy and image can be different, but in a medium such as music where visuals are an important aspect they become pretty synonymous, as an artist tries to put out an image that matches their sound, whether this is a straightforward image or a flamboyant one depends on a number of factors. The difference is with Bowie, is that his image has changed drastically several times, making him in many aspects very image driven.
Unknown Soldier is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



© 2003-2023 Advameg, Inc.