Welcome to the brand new Therapy? message boards! Find out what’s new or give us your feedback.

Paul McCartney

#

Started by caffeinebomb in Other Bands & Artists

By dint of the fact that I work for a globe-shagging corporate monolith which now owns McCartney’s ass and have been force fed Memory Almost Full (his new album) day in and day out for the past 2 weeks, I’ve developed something of a liking for it.

I think this is almost certainly a bad thing, but I’m finding I’ve had to look for it on YouTube when I get home to satisfy my McCartney addiction.

Anyone else heard it?

Posted on Wed, 13 June 2007 at 18:43

You’re viewing replies 1–30 of 52 by 18 people

·

Page: First | Previous | | Last

#1

The Auto Surgeon (Mark) wrote:

No mate, and you are quite welcome to it! :p

Posted on Wed, 13 June 2007 at 19:29

#2

Citizen Erased wrote:

Any of it as good as The Frog Chorus? That’s a great one for balmy summer evenings.

Posted on Wed, 13 June 2007 at 19:49

#3

Taunty Dan wrote:

caffeinebomb wrote:

By dint of the fact that I work for a globe-shagging corporate monolith which now owns McCartney’s ass and have been force fed Memory Almost Full (his new album) day in and day out for the past 2 weeks, I’ve developed something of a liking for it.

I think this is almost certainly a bad thing, but I’m finding I’ve had to look for it on YouTube when I get home to satisfy my McCartney addiction.

Anyone else heard it?

:eek:

*frantically fills ears with every object within his grasp for fear of hearing McCart…no , can’t even say it without being sick in his mouth*

Posted on Wed, 13 June 2007 at 19:58

#4

Muskeg (T.M. O.M) wrote:

Paul McCartney is a legend.

Posted on Wed, 13 June 2007 at 21:27

#5

Kill_Hill (Brendan) wrote:

who?

Posted on Wed, 13 June 2007 at 22:10

#6

col wrote:

He is a twat of the highest order.

Posted on Wed, 13 June 2007 at 22:40

#7

Muskeg (T.M. O.M) wrote:

Not like Axl Rose then :rolleyes:

I have never Paul Mccartney as a twat.

I dont get where all the hostility comes from.

Posted on Wed, 13 June 2007 at 23:03

#8

Divers (Simon) wrote:

I’ve worked With him… he can be a knob. I also don’t agree with the fact that his Daughters WANTED to go to a private school becuase their friends went to ones and he refused because he wanted to not spoil them. That’s just shit.. people who have not much money put there children through private schools if they think the education is better and the Child wants it.. thats not spoiling them thats being a good parent.
Also at his wedding the 500 million pound Paul made the guests pay for their own drinks. He only gives money to Charitys that he is involved with and benifit his profile. The list goes on… Dave Gilmor had a rant at him for the same reasons.. Gilmor owns property all around the world and when he no longer wants it he gives it away to a charity to sell as he doesn’t need the money… you wouldn’t ever see Paul doing that.
His solo output as been poor at the best of times since leaving the Beatles and rewrites the beatles history whenever possible to make himself out to never be in the wrong… that whole trying to change the credits to McCartney and Lennon what the fuck was that about??

Posted on Thu, 14 June 2007 at 06:08

#9

Dennis wrote:

Taunty Dan wrote:

:eek:

*frantically fills ears with every object within his grasp for fear of hearing McCart…no , can’t even say it without being sick in his mouth*

Absolutely!

Divers wrote:

he can be a knob

I can well believe it. I mean, the whole “fab, groovy, cool”, all-smiling, two-thumbs-fresh image just doesn’t wash with me.

Posted on Thu, 14 June 2007 at 08:43

#10

Misanthropologist (d) wrote:

As a person he just annoys me tremendously, but his basslines with the Beatles were often great. And after watching a programme about just why the Beatles’ songs are so well written, I have to agree on that score, too.

Posted on Thu, 14 June 2007 at 10:13

#11

Dennis wrote:

Taunty Dan wrote:

:eek:

*frantically fills ears with every object within his grasp for fear of hearing McCart…no , can’t even say it without being sick in his mouth*

Just to clarify; without being sick in your own mouth, or Paul McCartney’s…?

Posted on Thu, 14 June 2007 at 10:17

#12

Misanthropologist (d) wrote:

That’s not a question you want to hear the answer to.

Posted on Thu, 14 June 2007 at 10:20

#13

Dennis wrote:

Well in that case, it shares something in common with the following:

“What does Paul McCartney’s new album sound like…?”

:p

Posted on Thu, 14 June 2007 at 10:21

#14

Misanthropologist (d) wrote:

Answer to both questions: ‘Sick in McCartney’s mouth’

:D

Posted on Thu, 14 June 2007 at 10:32

#15

Dennis wrote:

:D LMFAO!

Posted on Thu, 14 June 2007 at 10:38

#16

Superunknown wrote:

The whole Starbucks/I jam with Linkin Park on stage/Two thumbs up-McCartney persona is still pretty annoying, but musically the guy is almost untouchable.

In The Beatles - who are the best band ever, if you like it or not - he was arguably the best songwriter. His solo career was hodgepodge with a lot of major turkeys, but also some good songs. And just when you think the guy will piss on his own legacy until his death he releases a song like “Jenny Wren” which stands proud among the best songs Macca has ever written. At age 62. After having written what? 149568 songs? That’s pretty respectable.

“Memory Almost Full” is not a masterpiece, but it’s solid and McCartney is one of the greats like Brian Wilson, Pete Townshend and Ray Davies.

Posted on Thu, 14 June 2007 at 14:25

#17

mr self destruct wrote:

I dislike The Beatles. They mean absolutely nothing to me. From what I’ve read and seen of them they seem(ed) like a bunch of tits.

Posted on Thu, 14 June 2007 at 14:54

#18

col wrote:

Ditto above.

Posted on Thu, 14 June 2007 at 16:11

#19

mrs h wrote:

Superunknown wrote:

After having written what? 149568 songs? That’s pretty respectable.

It would be incredible. That would be about one song every hour for 44 years, and would certainly explain the quality :p

Posted on Thu, 14 June 2007 at 18:45

#20

Taunty Dan wrote:

i’m not disputing mccartneys role in the beatles, its just that with a near 40 year solo career you could probably compile an outstanding 20ish track collection. The rest is pish.

Posted on Thu, 14 June 2007 at 19:13

#21

hoochalobster (Sarah) Super Moderator wrote:

mrs h wrote:

and would certainly explain the quality :p

:D

Posted on Thu, 14 June 2007 at 19:30

#22

col wrote:

And don’t start me off about Mulligans Tyres.

Posted on Thu, 14 June 2007 at 19:45

#23

buffalo-boy wrote:

By the time I got into music - in the 80’s, McCartney was like your sad uncle to me. You know thew one who wears naff jumpers at Christmas gatherings and wants to watch nature programmes instead of a Bond film. And thats always been my image of Macca. :)

Massive respect for the Beatles and some for Wings but I won’t be purchasing the new album! The last time I heard something new of his was on TFI Friday and it was dreadful!

Posted on Fri, 15 June 2007 at 07:23

#24

Dennis wrote:

Superunknown wrote:

The Beatles…are the best band ever, if you like it or not.

That is purely a matter of opinion, you can’t state that as if it is a fact.

Posted on Fri, 15 June 2007 at 08:44

#25

mrs h wrote:

@Dennis - That is purely a matter of opinion. You can’t state that as if it is a fact … :p

It was probably a typo, I suspect he meant to write ‘best banned’.

And anyway the best band of all time is obviously Jawbreaker. Everyone knows that! ;)

Posted on Fri, 15 June 2007 at 09:48

#26

Kill_Hill (Brendan) wrote:

I’m not a fan of the beatles but it is possible that they were the best band ever. could you seriously say T? were better than the Beatles? I’d feel a bit daft sayin that.

Posted on Fri, 15 June 2007 at 09:50

#27

mrs h wrote:

Would you? I could say the Bangles were better than the Beatles, both bands are equally unimportant to me …

Posted on Fri, 15 June 2007 at 10:01

#28

hoochalobster (Sarah) Super Moderator wrote:

I could name 100 bands I think are better than The Beatles. Therapy? would be at the top of that list. I’d put The Bangles in at about, ooh, 78?

Posted on Fri, 15 June 2007 at 10:03

#29

mrs h wrote:

You’re right. The Wurzels should be a bit lower down - maybe 88?

Paul McCartney on his own would be at the bottom of my list of bands that were worse then the Beatles.

And the Beach Boys would be at the bottom of any list I could dream up, even below Paul McCartney.

Haven’t we had this conversation before? I think there was a poll …

Posted on Fri, 15 June 2007 at 10:11

#30

Kill_Hill (Brendan) wrote:

hoochalobster wrote:

I could name 100 bands I think are better than The Beatles. Therapy? would be at the top of that list. I’d put The Bangles in at about, ooh, 78?

go ahead, name 100 bands

Posted on Fri, 15 June 2007 at 10:14

You’re viewing replies 1–30 of 52 by 18 people

·

Page: First | Previous | | Last

and become a member of the message boards. Sign in if you’re already a member.