The Beatles question
 

So what was the problem between John and Paul? Why did they split?

I think tensions rose when Lennon made the "Jesus" comment. From there, I believe John felt as though Paul took all the credit for the success of the band and decided to leave. Plus no one was very fond of Yoko Ono.

This was after Ringo and George had left and then came back.

It's quite clear that Lennon is the more irreplaceable member.

Brian Epstien died and Paul decided he could handle their dead managers role. This threatened John's ego as he'd been considered the band leader up to that point. They recorded Sgt. Pepper which was Paul's project.
In 69 John wanted to bring Allen Klien in as their Business manager to take Epstien's place, Paul wanted Linda Eastman's father to take that position. Paul refused to sign papers with Klien.
What it boiled down to was although they were makeing albums they weren't really collaberating on the writing of the songs. They were doing solo songs with the others as backups. John had a fragile ego and felt slighted by Paul's power trips so he brought Joko in to stir up the shit.He was on the way out and was waiting for some business deals to be finished but Paul jumped the gun and announced the split up.

Yup.

Lennon as a part of the Beatles was awesome.

Nothing gold can stay.

Eat shit and die :rant:

But seriously Trips, You are better than that post.

and FYI, George was the most important one.

what

Everytime I hear the beatles I keep thinking I'm in some kind of nutcase dream where everything is trying to be overly pleasant and I'm never going to escape. Seriously agitates me to listen to them.

That's retarded. Are you only listening to Octopus' Garden or some shit?

Obviously you havent heard any of their earlier, poppy stuff.

The beatles have many sounds. You must have just heard the acid trip albums.

lol @ angry beatles fans.

No, even the pop stuff does it, I watched Yellow Submarine when I was little and I think that just fucked me up long-term.

Either way I don't see how it matters to you that I don't like The Beatles because of X Y and Z.

Because it is like saying you dont like Geroge Carlin because of SHining Time Station.

You should judge on a whole body of work.

I've listened to enough of the Beatles to decide I don't like them. The popular stuff makes me feel like I'm in a weird trip of somekind, so I'm guessing that the psychedelic stuff isn't much better for making me feel oriented.

JJ, I'm getting the impression that you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Define the "popular stuff". What have you heard and what haven't you? Right now it just seems that you've heard very little and formed a half-assed opinion and you just stick by it now to save face.

Lucy in the sky with diamonds
I am the walruss
Back in the USSR
Peggy Lane
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
Strawberry fields forever
Yellow Submarine
That'll be the day
I wanna hold your hand
Plus a bunch I don't know by name but recognise by ear

lol come on, I live in the UK of course I know The Beatles' popular songs. By your logic, I'm retarded because their songs remind me of the same sort of thing and produce the same imagery. That's a pretty retarded argument in itself if you ask me. Not to mention you jumped to conclusions and assumed I'd never heard popular songs from one of the most popular bands in the world. Honestly, do you even know how stupid you sound?

Stop taking the piss :p

No, seriously do you not see something wrong here? It's like saying this:

'I don't like Da Vinci, the Mona Lisa is really depressing and I don't like it'
'That's retarded, Da Vinci's other works are cheerful, you're full of shit'
'No, I find his other works depressing too'

It's an opinion, just because you do not feel the same way does not mean it is inaccurate. You cannot tell me that I don't think X is Y, because it's my opinion, not a fact.

Really?

The Beatles did Peggy Lane didn't they?

I Am The Walrus produces the same imagery as I Want To Hold Your Hand? The only way this could be the case is because you have some preconceived notion about the artist and you're judging based on that rather than taking each piece for it's individual merits.

Peggy Lane

I mean seriously, the only thing many of those pieces have in common is the artist and nothing else. They are so musically different that it is absurd to pass a blanket judgment on them.

Personally I do not think so. They sound very similar to me. But my point still stands; how does that make me 'retarded'? What gives you the right to call me a retard because my opinion doesn't match yours? If you were to say that for instance, Black Sabbath conjured up the image of happy smiling flowers I would think 'That's a bit of an odd imagery' and ask you what makes you connect the two together. I wouldn't however call you a retard because you connected two seemingly different things together.

1. I never called you retarded.
2. So you are honestly saying that I Want To Hold Your Hand and I Am The Walrus sound similar?

This is what you are doing to me.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

Firstly, I am not wrong. It is a matter of opinion, there is no wrong or right. Secondly, if arguing on the internet is actually making you lose sleep, then you should seriously sort your life out.

And yes I do think the two sound similar. It's classic Britpop that I've endured for years, of course it all sounds similar to me. But you probably see them as completely different. The same applies to Drum n Bass, you probably couldn't tell the difference between two tracks that I'd deem to be completely different subgenres, because you don't share the same interest in it that I do.

Stop being closed minded and accept the fact that some people just don't give a shit about The Beatles enough to differentiate the styles of two similar songs.

1. That's retarded doesn't mean you're retarded. Though I'm starting to lean in that direction.
2. It's a comic, it's a joke. Do you know what jokes are? They stop being funny when you explain them, so I'll just let you think about the complex layers for a while. Eventually the humor may dawn on you. I wish you the best of luck.

3. You're only arguing your point now to save face. There is no possible way anyone, even the most musically inept could think those songs sound AT ALL similar. If you HONESTLY think that they do, then yes- I would then feel justified in calling you retarded. But I don't think you believe that. You just need to be a stubborn little bitch who stands by a point he made in haste that has no real basis in reality. It's this sort of shit that makes the majority of people on the forum dislike you. You have this rabid disregard for logic because you want to look right. You don't look right. You look like a jackass. Now you're trying to say "it's an opinion, I can't be wrong". It's not an opinion. Whether you like something or not, call that an opinion. But whether or not two things that can easily be compared on hundreds of different levels can be considered similar, that is something that can be clearly discerned. It is not an opinion. A is different than B. That's all there is to it.

Fine, let's roll with your 'logic' for a while. Despite the fact you revel in misology. So it is not an opinion, in that case, I am right and you are wrong. They sound similar. If you honestly think you can base someones retardation on the basis that they believe that two songs sound similar, then clearly you have no idea what being retarded actually is.

retarded

adjective
1. relatively slow in mental or emotional or physical development

I fail to see how this issue constitutes retardation. Learn what you are talking about before you try and argue a point.

So, you don't understand common usage of a term?

I think you're the one who doesn't understand the usage seeing as you fail to use it in the correct context.

So, you don't understand common usage of a term? I suppose you only use "gay" to mean "happy" as well?

Anyway, it's clear that you've realized you're wrong since you've resorted to arguing over semantics.

No, but if you're going to call me retarded out of intended context then that can only mean that you're using it as an insult, and therefore I'll assume that you've lost the argument because you can no longer support your claims and thus have moved onto throwing insults like a child.

Of course not, I only argue the points that you bring up. So if I'm arguing over semantics, it's your fault for incorrectly phrasing things in the first place. While I will not do it now, tomorrow I will compare the two songs and analyze them in their similarities and show evidence as to why seem very much alike to me.

Then we can continue this conversation at that point.

Indeed.