R_Soul

They were HUGE in the 70s and 80s: Ten Top 10 albums (including 4 No. 1s) Over 400 weeks on the album charts Ten Top 10 singles (including a No. 1 with John Lennon's "Jealous Guy") Didn't they take off in the States at all? Martin =================================================== Got to be good looking 'cos he's so hard to see...

We can beg to differ on the Bee Gees - I am more intrigued by what you mean by "the homophobic, racist 'Disco Sucks' movement of the 70s." I was into Punk at the time (which also had its share of right wing fascist homophobes (e.g. Skrewdriver), so a lot of that disco pap passed me by. So, what was this homophobic/racist "Disco Sucks" movement? [P.S. Without wishing to digress or contradict myself, I thought Chic were pretty good - especially "Le Freak"] Martin ============================================ Hold you in his armchair you can feel his disease...

Its funny, because I also thought this was going to be about The Cult! And, I guess they were a cult band. [And pretty good they were too.] From the original list, well Roxy Music were too popular (over here) to be a cult band. But I'd definitely plump for The Pixies anyway. It might be simply because, when they were around (end-80s/beginning 90s), there was very little else happening. Also, because they were a huge influence on other bands, and a spin off was The Breeders, who were also . Martin ==================================== Life is one long mystery my friend, so live on, live on....

No, sorry Sammy. He wasn't laughing at anyone. It was just meant to represent me laughing because I think its funny that people think Phil Collins is a good/great drummer. Give me a drum kit and I could do better than Phil anyday - and I've never touched a drum kit in my life! I think all the really good drummers have been listed and now, when we get to Phil Collins, I feel we're just scraping the barrell a bit. The thing is, if people LIKE him as a drummer, that's fine. I have no problem with that, because it's all a matter of taste what people like. But when he is mentioned as a "great drummer", I struggle. Martin ========================================== Got to pay your dues if you wanna sing the blues...

Never mind!

About the ears? I thought they looked pretty cute! About the gun? - You know, - whatever. About being 27? - More spooky weirdness - I ALSO have been 27! :sleepy:

27, you say? [You don't look it from your pic! OK...Just stay indoors and lock doors and windows. Don't take any illegal substances and ...swear that you don't have a gun. And you'll be fine! =================================== There's nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be...

Kurt swore that he didn't have a gun. It just goes to show, you can never trust a rock star to tell the truth.

27? So was Brian Jones....and - for the freaks - that was also the age that Paul McCartney supposedly died at in the "Paul Is Dead" 'mystery'. Methinks we're onto something... [...or maybe just ON something!... ::] ...Spoooooooky! ======================================== And when the cupboard's bare, I'll still find something there...

Even if all recreational drugs were legalised, there's no telling what they could do to you.....a lot depends on your state of mind and your body chemistry. If you do ANY drugs, you have know that you can control it...and that's the problem! If something like acid or ecstacy gets into your brain, it can react in a variety of ways...and sometimes its good and sometimes its just not funny at all! Also, the long-term effcts of taking drugs over a prolonged period will leave you with the same number of brain cells as a mushroom! Great people who have died from drugs...I've got a feeling that both John Bonham and Keith Moon were victims of a combination of drugs and drink (and then choking on their own vomit). Nice way to go. Not. Just say "no" to drugs. And don't EVER do them alone!!! Trust me.

There is loads of evidence to suggest Paul is dead. Just listen to all of his output since 1970! Only kidding. I love Paul. I am not aware that there are any songs on "Abbey Road" that say he's dead (but I've never played it backwards, so I wouldn't really know). "Abbey Road" was just the 'bearfoot' thing on the cover. Apparently, if you play "Revolution #9" backwards, it says "Turn me on dead man" and at the end of "Strawberry Fields Forever", John Lennon says "I buried Paul" (except that, actually, he says "cranberry sauce"...although.... WHY??? The Beatles had lots of backwards stuff in their 'psychedelic' phase but, despite their mischieviousness in such things connected with their lyrics, I don't think they ever put in backwards messages. There is enough in their lyrics to baffle musicologists without that! ELO on the other hand...well they had an album called "Secret Messages", which had backwards passages in some of the songs. One presumes that the idea was that you would be so intrigued as to what they were that you would play the album backwards. I never bothered - partly because I couldn't be bothered and partly because it was going to be so obviously contrived. The "Paul Is Dead" thing actually covered the period from 1966 (when he had a minor accident which resulted in him chipping a front tooth) right through to the end and, apart from what I mentioned above, there is 'evidence' in each of their albums from 1967 which 'proves' that he died in 1966. there are entire websites devoted to the subject if you're interested. It was a major preoccupation at the end of the 60s and there are still people who believe it even today. If it was true, it would mean that Ringo is now the only surviving Beatle! Reunion, anyone? Martin

My all-time favourite songs that never made the charts (or barely scaped the charts) are: "White Rabbit" by Jefferson Airplane. [Never a hit in the UK, although a US No. 1] "A Salty Dog" by Procol Harum [No. 44] "I Had Too Much To Dream Last Night" by The Electric Prunes [49] "Get Me To The World On Time" by The Electric Prunes [42] "Drink The Elixir" by Salad [66] "Try A Little Tenderness" by Otis Redding [46] "Temporary Secretary" - Paul McCartney [didn't chart at all; the best thing he did post-Beatles!] The are zillions of others, of course. But they're my faves

Highly recommended are Muse. They have had three albums out: "Showbiz", "Origin Of Symmetry" and "Absolution" (plus also the double, "Hullabloo", but that was a collection of B-side and a live album). They are all really great albums - Some hard hitting rock, interspersed with some spine-tingling melodies. They are my favourite band of the decade (so they therefore join: The Beatles - 60s Sex Pistols - 70s Stone Roses - 80s Radiohead - 90s so you can see where I'm coming from). I was also extremely impressed with Wilco's "Yanke Hotel Foxtrot" once it grew on me. I haven't heard their new one yet. I will be buying that on Tuesday, but it got good reviews over here in little England. I also quite like what I've heard from NZ band The Datsuns. Hope that helps. [However, if you like Guns 'n' Roses, it won't!] Martin

In addition to "Her Majesty" [The Beatles], the three shortest tracks in my collection are all by Paul McCartney. Skinflint! 1. "Oobu Joobu Part 1: (Some Folks Say Oobu)" 0:25 2. "Soggy Noodle" 0:29 3. "Oobu Joobu Part 1: Oobu Joobu Main Theme/Fun Packed Show" 0:38. [it takes longer to type the name of the track than it does to play it from start to finish!]

Whether these are one hit wonders is open to debate, depending what country you're in, but here goes (from my British perspective): 60s - "96 Tears" - ? & The Mysterians 70s - "I Can't Stand The Rain" - Ann Peebles 80s - "Echo Beach" - Martha & The Muffins 90s - "A Nanny In Manhattan" - The Lilys 00s - "Soldier Girl" - Polyphonic Spree [i think they might've had one other minor hit...and the decade is still young...] My favourite no-hit wonder is Jefferson Airplane: "White Rabbit", an amazing record which was totally ignored here in the UK. Martin

Good Singers: Aretha Franklin and Otis Redding Good Bands: Nirvana Pixies The Breeders Radiohead Muse Stone Roses ...many of the above as listed by other people, but avoid Yes! [Also, if anyone suggests Genesis, ignore it!] It won't do you any good at all!

1. I think, at the time, a lot of people might have thought the ending of "Hey Jude" was too long, but if you were to chop 2 minutes off it now, it would end all-too-soon. 2. If you chop 8 mins and 6 secs off "Hey Jude", it will be minus 57 seconds long! But I think you knew that!

I hate it when an 'otherwise good song' is murdered by a female vocalist who thinks she can sing. The obvious examples are Whitney Houston's ear-shatteringly awful version of Dolly Parton's "I Will Always Love You" and Mariah Carey's painful cover of Nilsson's [well... Ham & Evans'] "Without You". There are some notes in Whitney's "I Will Always Love You" that made my dog howl. It is honestly the only record I have had to switch off the radio for for because I couldn't stand it when she (almost) hit those notes. P.S. I think the kazoo in "Crosstown Traffic" is fab!

Ringo Starr was voted by his peers (other drummers) as the best drummer (behind Buddy Rich) in a poll some time ago. This was post-Beatlemania. It was based on his ability to drum in a variety of styles. I agree with this. Most of the drummers listed above can do long, boring solos (not Ringo's speciality), or just thrash around track after track. Listen to The Beatles' records and compare the drumming on the following: "Roll Over Beethoven" "Ticket To Ride" "I'm Down" "Rain" "Tomorrow Never Knows" "Strawberry Fields Forever" "A Day In The Life" "Revolution" "Mother Nature's Son" "Helter Skelter" "Yer Blues" "Get Back" ...I think you get my drift. One magazine {"Q"} stated that Ringo "invented pop drummers". So....Give him some credit....VOTE FOR RINGO!!! Also, I was a huge fan of John Bonham. I remember Bev Bevan (from ELO, also a pretty good drummer himself), talking about what makes a good drummer. He said it is someone who is not afraid NOT to drum; i.e. it is OK to have gaps in songs where there is no drumming, where the drummer actually exercises some retraint. The comment was in reference to the drumming styles of Bonham and Ringo. Martin

Artists I have actually met (and chatted to): 1. Lulu [at her Abbey Road Christmas Party in 1969] - she was really sweet 2. John something-or-other [from Mungo Jerry] [1973] - he used to bank with the Bank I used to work for. He left his car keys behind and I had to go chasing after him. 3. Steve Craddock [from Ocean Colour Scene and Paul Weller's backing band] [1995] - I was wearing a Beatles' T-shirt and Steve asked me if I liked The Beatles....derr . This was in a lift in a hotel in Madrid. 4. Dave Rowntree [drummer with Blur] [1996] - I was watching the (football) World Cup qualifying game England v. Italy in the back bar of an Irish Bar in Madrid. 3/4 of Blur turned up and, after standing next to each other at the urinals (during a toilet break), Dave came and sat next to me. We ended up chatting about the game (which Italy were winning!) and their promtional visit to Madrid. Nice guy. 5. Emma and Geoff [from Fascia - a little local band here [1998]...I know, I'm scraping the bottom of the barrel..] - Their mother was giving me a Reiki session and I got to meet this brother and sister from the band and got a pre-release copy of their first CD "Distant Echo"]. IMPRESSED? OK....Nor me...However, I would like to say that each one I've met has been a really nice person. And they were all alive at the time as well. Dead People that I would love to have met...[in order] 1. George Harrison :guitar: 2. John Lennon :guitar: 3. Brian Jones :guitar: 4. Jimi Hendrix :guitar: 5. John Bonham [i think they would make a pretty interesting band!]

Carl/Sara, Can I just say how impressed I am with the way you have dealt with this. I have never visited a site like this before where the moderators are really actively involved, actually listen to 'the people', and take the required action. So.."thank YOU". If I spot any others, I'll drop you an e-mail rather than doing it through this forum, but I have also enjoyed the experience of exchanging views about this, so the whole this has been positive. [Also thought it was funny/ironic that "Dick" got [bleeped] (in the Music Discussion about Lennon/McCartney) even though used perfectly correctly!] Cheers, Martin X P.S. Yoko says "Thanks", too!!!

Oh...I just realised that I didn't respond to the "Lennon/McCartney" songwriting credit. The songs on the first album ["Please Please Me", as opposed to whatever was released in the States later on] were actually credited to McCartney/Lennon. Then there seems to have been some discussion when deciding on subsequently recorded original material. They clearly saw themselves as future "Rogers & Hammerstein" and, if you look at it, "Rogers" has the same number of syllables as "Lennon" and "Hammerstein" has the same number of syllables as "McCartney". So it sounds better that way round. However, I recall reading something from Paul where he said that, when asked how it should be styled, John jumped in with "Lennon & McCartney" and Brian Epstein (who, as we know had a crush on John) agreed. Paul was left open-mouthed without his opinion being heard. Coming up-to-date, I understand that Paul saw somewhere something which had computer graphics (or something) where the composers' name didn't fit in the required field. I seem to recall that he saw that "Yesterday" was written by "Lennon & ...". So his concern is not for the present day - because we all know who wrote "Yesterday" and...well.. all of them. It is for the future; i.e. he is trying (I believe) to protect his future legacy so that people in the future will realise that that "Yesterday was not written by "Lennon &" but was written by "McCartney". I can see his point to an extent (if you put yourself in his shoes). It's just that it seems a bit tedious to you and me because we know and /or we don't care. If it was ever that much of an issue, they should have taken care of it at the time, but, as I say, in the more uncertain times of 1963/4, they saw their future as a songwriting team, like Rogers & Hammerstein. Imagine "Hammerstein & Rogers". In the same way that that doesn't sound right, nor does "McCartney & Lennon". Martin

Hi Mike, Thanks for your comments. I?m glad someone agrees with me! The whole story of The Beatles - especially the period when they were disintegrating - is a really interesting area. My take on the 'split' is that, post-touring and post-Epstein there was only ever going to be one outcome. The Beatles grew up, they formed strong relationships with their women and...well...their priorities changed. Not only that, but the evidence suggests that both Lennon and Harrison were 'savvy' enough to see that the band had run its course. McCartney hadn't realised that and wanted to keep the band together. It is therefore ironic that McCartney is probably more to blame for the break-up of The Beatles than anyone. His constant badgering of the other guys would have irritated anyone, let alone three of the most talented people ever to have been involved in popular music. Not only that, but his 'neatness' was the antithesis of was what his main partner was trying to do. Lennon's response to the meticulous "Abbey Road" was to put out "Cold Turkey". Pop groups have a limited shelf life, and if the Beatles had continued after ?Abbey Road?/?Let It Be? they would have tainted their own astonishing legacy. Look at The Rolling Stones. The Beatles? worst album ? whatever that may be ? is better than most people?s best. They were a unique phenomenon and ? as if by some sixth sense ? they finished at exactly the right time. They defined the sixties. They were fab [still are] and it ended. Yoko?s involvement in all of it was that John wanted to spend more time with her. If you?re in love, you?d want to spend more time with your lover than your mates, wouldn?t you? Save for the huge cock-up in McCartney and Yoko not outbidding Michael Jackson for the publishing rights to most of The Beatles? songs, I also feel that Yoko has been sympathetic with John?s legacy. There was the excellent Lennon ?Anthology? box set and the occasional re-release of ?Imagine? (over here), Oh?and ?Free As A Bird? of course, but I think she has been an excellent custodian of his work, image and name. Even before it was obvious to the world at large that The Beatles were disintegrating, the press and the public were dreadful towards her ? with the press (here) even referring to her as ?ugly?. No-one deserves that. Also this thing about being ?the most useless person that ever existed?, even if the only thing she had ever recorded was the very excellent ?Walking On Thin Ice?, that means she has made a far greater contribution to popular culture than most of the people on this planet can claim. No-one deserves the treatment she has received ? and, by looking at this site, is still receiving. As I asked previously: ?What is it that she has done that is so bad?? Anyway, thanks again for taking the time to respond. It?s always nice to mull over Beatles? stuff with a fellow fan. I really do like this site, I just get irritated when people abuse things. Martin

OK....I feel a bit of support for my views now, so I can calm down a bit! The song with the insulting comments about Yoko is under "Yesterday". It seems to come about because the song's composer [McCartney] wants the credit changed from Lennon/McCartney to McCartney/Lennon. The comment about the composer credit is relevant to the song. The attack on Yoko is completely unnecessary and unwarranted. Also, when researching "Get Back" yesterday, I noticed another nasty, pointless comment aimed in Yoko's direction: "[Yoko] is the most useless person that ever existed". Apart from being able to name 100 people off the top of my head who would deserve that title more than Yoko, is anyone able to to enlighten me as to what this has to do with "Get Back" (notwithstanding John Lennon's unsubstantiated view that he thought McCartney was singing to Yoko: "Get back to where you once belonged"]? What exactly is it that Yoko Ono is supposed to have done that warrants such postings from visitors to this site? Split up a pop group? [Which she didn't...and even if she did, she should receive credit for it.]

Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? There is absolutely nothing wrong with posting opinions. My point has been in relation to the factual accuracy of the postings made, the relevance of the postings made and the personal attacks made on artists which have nothing to do with the song, per se. [see my post about the insulting comments made about Yoko Ono at the beginning of this.] All this serves to do is devalue the site and the actual facts that are posted. The note at the top of the Songfacts page for each song says: "You can leave comments about the SONG at the bottom of the page." I personally do not see that (an erroneous) discussion about Ringo's age, an attack on Yoko Ono, or someone saying "this sucks" complies with leaving a comment (not an opinion) about the song. I have also just been reading an interesting (not) discussion about Paul and Heather McCartney's relationship/age difference under "Here Come The Sun". Also, this site is called "songfacts", not "songopinions" or "songattacks", but "songfacts". I rest my case.