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, 05:26 AM   #91 (permalink)
Mate, Spawn & Die
 
Janszoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: The Rapping Community
Posts: 24,593
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mainekick View Post
Paul is the real king of pop. Like it or not the Beatles infuenced every genre today. Sort of like Mozart's influence.
Every genre? Dubstep? Grindcore? Cumbia?
Janszoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2011, 12:18 PM   #92 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 937
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Il Duce View Post
i seem to think people just assumes Bowie is better because he's "cooler" than Paul
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.

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.
__________________
non-cliquey member of every music forum I participate on
starrynight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2011, 04:10 PM   #93 (permalink)
A.B.N.
 
djchameleon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NY baby
Posts: 11,455
Default

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.
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
__________________
Fame, fortune, power, titties. People say these are the most crucial things in life, but you can have a pocket full o' gold and it doesn't mean sh*t if you don't have someone to share that gold with. Seems simple. Yet it's an important lesson to learn. Even lone wolves run in packs sometimes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RoxyRollah View Post
IMO I don't know jack-**** though so don't listen to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franco Pepe Kalle View Post
The problem is that most police officers in America are psychopaths.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord View Post
You're a terrible dictionary.
djchameleon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2011, 04:18 PM   #94 (permalink)
Horribly Creative
 
Unknown Soldier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London, The Big Smoke
Posts: 8,265
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`d hardly put the funny haircuts that the Beatles had, in the same type of image category that Bowie was projecting. Also the comparison is not great, as the Beatles look was quite some time before Bowie kicked in.
Unknown Soldier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2011, 04:21 PM   #95 (permalink)
A.B.N.
 
djchameleon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NY baby
Posts: 11,455
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier View Post
I`d hardly put the funny haircuts that the Beatles had, in the same type of image category that Bowie was projecting. Also the comparison is not great, as the Beatles look was quite some time before Bowie kicked in.
My point is they still had an image with that haircut, an image that was even replicated by other bands.
__________________
Fame, fortune, power, titties. People say these are the most crucial things in life, but you can have a pocket full o' gold and it doesn't mean sh*t if you don't have someone to share that gold with. Seems simple. Yet it's an important lesson to learn. Even lone wolves run in packs sometimes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RoxyRollah View Post
IMO I don't know jack-**** though so don't listen to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franco Pepe Kalle View Post
The problem is that most police officers in America are psychopaths.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord View Post
You're a terrible dictionary.
djchameleon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2011, 04:27 PM   #96 (permalink)
Horribly Creative
 
Unknown Soldier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London, The Big Smoke
Posts: 8,265
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by djchameleon View Post
My point is they still had an image with that haircut, an image that was even replicated by other bands.
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
Unknown Soldier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2011, 04:29 PM   #97 (permalink)
A.B.N.
 
djchameleon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NY baby
Posts: 11,455
Default

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
that's why I used the word flamboyant to describe that whole part of what you said :P

IMO, Starrynight was saying The Beatles had no image whatsoever or that's what I got from what he was saying.
__________________
Fame, fortune, power, titties. People say these are the most crucial things in life, but you can have a pocket full o' gold and it doesn't mean sh*t if you don't have someone to share that gold with. Seems simple. Yet it's an important lesson to learn. Even lone wolves run in packs sometimes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RoxyRollah View Post
IMO I don't know jack-**** though so don't listen to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franco Pepe Kalle View Post
The problem is that most police officers in America are psychopaths.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord View Post
You're a terrible dictionary.
djchameleon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2011, 04:33 PM   #98 (permalink)
Horribly Creative
 
Unknown Soldier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London, The Big Smoke
Posts: 8,265
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by djchameleon View Post
IMO, Starrynight was saying The Beatles had no image whatsoever or that's what I got from what he was saying.
Well dreamynight got that part wrong.
Unknown Soldier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2011, 04:43 PM   #99 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 937
Default

Except that I never said The Beatles had no image. Where did I actually say that? In your imagination.

Bowie intentionally set out to shock visually, his image was part of his whole act. The Beatles didn't really shock, they took their image from the time they were in. Their originality was more in the music as that is what they concentrated on.
__________________
non-cliquey member of every music forum I participate on
starrynight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2011, 06:57 PM   #100 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
[MERIT]'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Missouri, USA
Posts: 4,814
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by starrynight View Post
Except that I never said The Beatles had no image. Where did I actually say that? In your imagination.

Bowie intentionally set out to shock visually, his image was part of his whole act. The Beatles didn't really shock, they took their image from the time they were in. Their originality was more in the music as that is what they concentrated on.
Very true. If anything, the initial clean-cut image of the Beatles was intended to do the exact opposite of that of the image that David Bowie portrayed. Beatles were designed for mass appeal, Bowie was designed for counter culture.
[MERIT] is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.