I'm sad to admit it, but yeah, Lennon could possible be greater now because he's dead.

But I think that there would be a lot more anti-war movement had Lennon been on the front. The baby-boomers, who make up the majority of the population, would have a familiar face to ride behind.

[QUOTE=Seafroggys]I'm sad to admit it, but yeah, Lennon could possible be greater now because he's dead.

But I think that there would be a lot more anti-war movement had Lennon been on the front. The baby-boomers, who make up the majority of the population, would have a familiar face to ride behind.[/QUOTE]

It's like saying: "Do you think Jesus is greater now that he's dead?"

[QUOTE=clown_phobia]It's like saying: "Do you think Jesus is greater now that he's dead?"[/QUOTE]

everyone knows lennon is bigger than jesus.

[QUOTE=ultraspamboy]everyone knows lennon is bigger than jesus.[/QUOTE]

Hehe. Truth.

More people don't like Jesus than don't like Lennon too.

How long would it take for this thread to be an ***OFFICIAL*** deal?

[QUOTE=Walrus Gumboot]How long would it take for this thread to be an ***OFFICIAL*** deal?[/QUOTE]
I think this one is popular so they won't make one.

No, he means when they'll change this one into the ***OFFICIAL*** thread.

[QUOTE=Woodstock]No, he means when they'll change this one into the ***OFFICIAL*** thread.[/QUOTE]

Oh got ya. Yea that would be nice, I think there would be more posts.

i had this discussion with Deus over AIM, Mods tend to only make ***OFFICIAL*** threads of a band when people are constantly making threads on the same band, but there is only one Beatles thread so they dont have to make it OFFICIAL,

[QUOTE=Sgt._Joker]i had this discussion with Deus over AIM, Mods tend to only make ***OFFICIAL*** threads of a band when people are constantly making threads on the same band, but there is only one Beatles thread so they dont have to make it OFFICIAL,[/QUOTE]
It's a large enough thread to overcome that rule.

thats true

I know the Beatles used to cover a few Chuck Berry songs. Does anybody know if there is a version of them doing Johnny B Good?

[QUOTE=pigonthewing82]I know the Beatles used to cover a few Chuck Berry songs. Does anybody know if there is a version of them doing Johnny B Good?[/QUOTE]

I think they did a version on [i]Live at the BBC[/i].

[QUOTE=clown_phobia]I think they did a version on [i]Live at the BBC[/i].[/QUOTE]

Thanks :thumb:

Yea there is a lot of good rare Beatles stuff out there. I have the mother of it them though, the Beatles playing Day Tripper with Hendrix on guitar :p . Now THAT is bigger then Jesus.

I'm pretty sure it is on Live at the BBC, but not positive. As for making this thread official, there's not really much point. We might get a couple more people coming in because it's official, but I doubt we'd get any serious long term posters who hadn't found the thread to begin with. Plus, no one ever makes Beatles threads clogging up the front page. Sure, it'd be nice to have it official, but it's not a big deal either way.

As for the Lennon thing, I honestly think him dying sealed his eternal fame, depressing as that thought may be. I mean, look at Hendrix. His music was going down hill (in my opinion) before he died. If he'd stayed alive, would he still be the god he is today? Plus, Rolling Stone magazine hated him. Would they give him the hype if he hadn't died? I don't think so. Look at Ray Charles' last album. It was pretty bad, to be totally honest. It only won the grammy for one reason: he died this year. And the album will be famous for that reason only. Sad, but true.

[QUOTE=DeusExMachina]As for the Lennon thing, I honestly think him dying sealed his eternal fame, depressing as that thought may be. I mean, look at Hendrix. His music was going down hill (in my opinion) before he died. If he'd stayed alive, would he still be the god he is today? Plus, Rolling Stone magazine hated him. Would they give him the hype if he hadn't died? I don't think so. Look at Ray Charles' last album. It was pretty bad, to be totally honest. It only won the grammy for one reason: he died this year. And the album will be famous for that reason only. Sad, but true.[/QUOTE]
I don't think Hendrix's music was going downhill. Listen to First Rays of The New Rising Sun. Great material, written right before he died.

Maybe I'm crazy, but Band of Gypsies was pretty disappointing to me. Machine Gun is good, the rest I couldn't really get into too much.

[QUOTE=Woodstock]I don't think Hendrix's music was going downhill. Listen to First Rays of The New Rising Sun. Great material, written right before he died.[/QUOTE]

I agree I think Hendrix's stuff was amazing before, but his stuff before he died cannot be described.

Sorry if you guys have talked about this, but I came across a pretty interesting site yesterday about the "proof" that paul is dead. Do you guys think its true that he is dead? or is it just a conspiracy or myth or whatever?
I kind of think it's true because they had alot of little "clues" on the site.

Band of Gypsies was a throwaway album intended to fulfill an old contractual obligation.

[QUOTE=magicaltroll834]Sorry if you guys have talked about this, but I came across a pretty interesting site yesterday about the "proof" that paul is dead. Do you guys think its true that he is dead? or is it just a conspiracy or myth or whatever?
I kind of think it's true because they had alot of little "clues" on the site.[/QUOTE]

Yeah that theory has been around since the 60's, and it's pretty cool, but it's obviously not true.

[QUOTE=ultraspamboy]Band of Gypsies was a throwaway album intended to fulfill an old contractual obligation.[/QUOTE]
It may have been for a contractual obligation, but that doesn't mean it was a throwaway album.

[QUOTE=magicaltroll834]Sorry if you guys have talked about this, but I came across a pretty interesting site yesterday about the "proof" that paul is dead. Do you guys think its true that he is dead? or is it just a conspiracy or myth or whatever?
I kind of think it's true because they had alot of little "clues" on the site.[/QUOTE]

Paul is deff still kicking around

There's a book about the Paul myth called "Turn Me On, Deadman"

Of course the title refers to the message in Revolution 9.

Go check that book out.

[QUOTE=MalcolmYoungRock]There's a book about the Paul myth called "Turn Me On, Deadman"

Of course the title refers to the message in Revolution 9.

Go check that book out.[/QUOTE]
Thanks, I just thought it was pretty interesting, because it had alot of good points, but maybe the Beatles did that stuff to have fun or something... I don't know. But still interesting imo.

I definitely think they put a lot of the stuff in there to fuel the rumor. I think a lot of the tiny details are stuff that people are reading into too much though. I don't see how someone could possibly have replaced Paul McCartney, not only to look and sing like him but to write songs like him as well.

[QUOTE=ultraspamboy]I definitely think they put a lot of the stuff in there to fuel the rumor. I think a lot of the tiny details are stuff that people are reading into too much though. I don't see how someone could possibly have replaced Paul McCartney, not only to look and sing like him but to write songs like him as well.[/QUOTE]
I'm not too sure who wrote the songs in the Beatles (or if it was all the band) but I think that they could of still wrote songs without him.

possibly, but they didnt.
John and Paul mostly wrote the songs and George also wrote songs but only ocasionally got them put on the albumns.

Most of that rumour the Beatles added to.

[QUOTE=magicaltroll834]I'm not too sure who wrote the songs in the Beatles (or if it was all the band) but I think that they could of still wrote songs without him.[/QUOTE]
But why would a fake want a solo career? Why would he still want to have attention?

[QUOTE=magicaltroll834]I'm not too sure who wrote the songs in the Beatles (or if it was all the band) but I think that they could of still wrote songs without him.[/QUOTE]

I think if Paul died they would sound more like John's solo career.

[QUOTE=pigonthewing82]I think if Paul died they would sound more like John's solo career.[/QUOTE]

For sure. It just wouldn't be the same. With the Beatles, every one had such a cool, distinct personality, that it wouldn't be the Beatles without all of them.

Yeah, Paul kind of kept John in control with his music.

Paul was also the most talented musically, so the band would mainly be about lyrics.

[QUOTE=MalcolmYoungRock]Yeah, Paul kind of kept John in control with his music.

Paul was also the most talented musically, so the band would mainly be about lyrics.[/QUOTE]
George rivaled him.

[QUOTE=Woodstock]George rivaled him.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, Something rules!

He was a very good guitarist. Very melodic.

Yeah but I don't think George could play the drums

[QUOTE=eghed]Yeah but I don't think George could play the drums[/QUOTE]
I don't think Paul could play sitar.

Ha, you're right

[url]http://www.musicianforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7020571&postcount=4903[/url]

Everyone cheak out what this retard said in the problem thread. :lol:

When Ringo left the band for a while during the record of the white album, Paul played drums on the song 'Back in the USSR'. The band sent a postcard to Ringo saying 'You are the best drummer in the world. Really.'

Before this was sent, Paul asked John "Do you think Ringo is the best drummer in world?" John responded: "The best drummer in the world?? He's not even the best drummer in the Beatles!"

It was while Ringo was out of the band that he wrote [i]Octopus' Garden[/i], which was later to appear on 1969's Abbey Road album. This song was re-worked by George in the studio but Ringo still got credits for it.