Reply #58: If the veracity of this is verifiably voracious, [View All]

[ForrestGump]

I don't especially care. Paul's done amazing stuff with the Beatles and since and he's one of the most accomplished and exciting live performers around. He still puts 100% into every song, remaining committed fully even to songs recorded originally over four decades ago. If you get a chance to see him live, and have even a passing interest in pop culture and music, do not pass go on your way to the stadium. Yeah, if he gets the best slot or slots at this gig, good for him. He deserves no less.

Always interesting how (not so much on this thread yet, actually) Paul gets slammed by so many DUers whereas John gets a free pass to saintlihood when the fact is that much of the riskier stuff attempted by the Beatles was primarily Paul's doing and John (brilliant though he was) produced at least a couple of the Beatles' lesser moments and turned out a lot of unmitigated crap in the '70s. I'm guessing that part of it is the pseudointellectual trendy hipster f***wit tendency to dismiss Paul as a 'commercial' (ooooooohhhh...he must he evil, the capitalist running-dog lackey oppressor of the proletariat) hack while elevating John to the level of selfless Gandhi-like figure. Neither's a true picture and John's decidedly un-Gandhi-like personality makes him no less fascinating or talented an individual.

Bottom line is that both -- like Bob Dylan, criticized elsewhere on DU at this very moment for 'selling out' to Starbucks -- got into music to get the usual things: girls and money. That's not all they aspired to, once they matured, but it's what made the Beatles happen in the first place.