|
Post by topherblair on Aug 14, 2008 4:44:27 GMT
Hey everyone, I'm pretty new here but for some reason I've had this question that keeps coming back up in my mind. I looked online for interviews about the subject but I haven't found anything and I was wondering if anyone knew if Paul ever stated his opinion on 'grunge' or Nirvana's music back in the 90's. Maybe it's because I've heard Nirvana called the Beatles of their time, I don't know. I don't even really care that much for grunge music lol I've just been wanting to know his opinion. So if you've heard anything let me know. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by The End on Aug 14, 2008 12:20:21 GMT
Welcom to The Beatle Forum! I saw an interview with Paul in the 90's (on TFI Friday) - he was asked if there was a modern band that he'd like to play bass in and he said Nirvana!
|
|
|
Post by Bobber on Aug 15, 2008 12:01:51 GMT
Probably the only one he knew.
|
|
|
Post by The End on Aug 15, 2008 12:33:42 GMT
LOL
Actually, as I recall, he was quite knowledgable of them!
|
|
pc31
What Goes On In Your Heart
all we see or seem is but a dream within a dream.
Posts: 72
|
Post by pc31 on Aug 15, 2008 18:37:00 GMT
tad is cool....
|
|
pc31
What Goes On In Your Heart
all we see or seem is but a dream within a dream.
Posts: 72
|
Post by pc31 on Aug 15, 2008 18:44:55 GMT
|
|
pc31
What Goes On In Your Heart
all we see or seem is but a dream within a dream.
Posts: 72
|
Post by pc31 on Aug 15, 2008 19:38:15 GMT
am i the only one who thinks this sounds like buddy holly music?
|
|
|
Post by blueblackbird on Sept 30, 2008 15:04:41 GMT
Hey everyone, I'm pretty new here but for some reason I've had this question that keeps coming back up in my mind. I looked online for interviews about the subject but I haven't found anything and I was wondering if anyone knew if Paul ever stated his opinion on 'grunge' or Nirvana's music back in the 90's. Maybe it's because I've heard Nirvana called the Beatles of their time, I don't know. I don't even really care that much for grunge music lol I've just been wanting to know his opinion. So if you've heard anything let me know. Thanks! haha"The Beatles of their time" that's not even close the so called "Beatles" of the 90's were oasis, and there's no doubt about it
|
|
|
Post by mrmustard on Sept 30, 2008 23:39:19 GMT
Hey everyone, I'm pretty new here but for some reason I've had this question that keeps coming back up in my mind. I looked online for interviews about the subject but I haven't found anything and I was wondering if anyone knew if Paul ever stated his opinion on 'grunge' or Nirvana's music back in the 90's. Maybe it's because I've heard Nirvana called the Beatles of their time, I don't know. I don't even really care that much for grunge music lol I've just been wanting to know his opinion. So if you've heard anything let me know. Thanks! haha"The Beatles of their time" that's not even close the so called "Beatles" of the 90's were oasis, and there's no doubt about it What utter bollocks you are talking. Oasis should not be mentioned in the same breath as The Beatles only to say they are total rip off's. For a start Noel Gallagher is a shit electric guitar player. Liam Gallagher has no concept of melody in his voice. In short they were the most unsatisfying band of the 20th century. At least Nirvana had realism, honesty and excitement. Oh yes, and talent. Something that could never be said about Oasis. I'm certain that McCartney did state some opinion on grunge and Nirvana but I can't quote it.
|
|
alexis
I'll Be On My Way
Posts: 447
|
Post by alexis on Oct 1, 2008 3:20:54 GMT
am i the only one who thinks this sounds like buddy holly music? And that guitarist has a (probably cultivated) Buddy Holly appearance too!
|
|
|
Post by blueblackbird on Oct 2, 2008 19:32:11 GMT
haha"The Beatles of their time" that's not even close the so called "Beatles" of the 90's were oasis, and there's no doubt about it What utter bollocks you are talking. Oasis should not be mentioned in the same breath as The Beatles only to say they are total rip off's. For a start Noel Gallagher is a shit electric guitar player. Liam Gallagher has no concept of melody in his voice. In short they were the most unsatisfying band of the 20th century. At least Nirvana had realism, honesty and excitement. Oh yes, and talent. Something that could never be said about Oasis. I'm certain that McCartney did state some opinion on grunge and Nirvana but I can't quote it. My opinion stands still... I'm not comparing The Beatles and Oasis musically, you geek... In terms of popularity Oasis were the most popular band of the 90's just like The Beatles in the 60's and so on... Nirvana was a great band Oasis was an excellent band, their new work is just average.... So be cool when talking about them
|
|
|
Post by mrmustard on Oct 2, 2008 20:25:28 GMT
What utter bollocks you are talking. Oasis should not be mentioned in the same breath as The Beatles only to say they are total rip off's. For a start Noel Gallagher is a shit electric guitar player. Liam Gallagher has no concept of melody in his voice. In short they were the most unsatisfying band of the 20th century. At least Nirvana had realism, honesty and excitement. Oh yes, and talent. Something that could never be said about Oasis. I'm certain that McCartney did state some opinion on grunge and Nirvana but I can't quote it. My opinion stands still... I'm not comparing The Beatles and Oasis musically, you geek... In terms of popularity Oasis were the most popular band of the 90's just like The Beatles in the 60's and so on... Nirvana was a great band Oasis was an excellent band, their new work is just average.... So be cool when talking about them Ok, no need for name calling you saddo. Oasis may well have been very popular in the uk but they don't mean shit anywhere else. They could barely finish a tour abroad. This comparison again falls down. There are many bands we could argue that are true equals to The Beatles but Oasis just ain't one of them.
|
|
|
Post by pythonesque on Oct 2, 2008 21:51:10 GMT
i may as well add my bit to this,without the childish name calling.i like some oasis tracks,but to compare them to the beatles in any way at all,is ridicoulus.the beatles wipe the floor with them.they rip off.
|
|
|
Post by blueblackbird on Oct 2, 2008 22:03:44 GMT
My opinion stands still... I'm not comparing The Beatles and Oasis musically, you geek... In terms of popularity Oasis were the most popular band of the 90's just like The Beatles in the 60's and so on... Nirvana was a great band Oasis was an excellent band, their new work is just average.... So be cool when talking about them Ok, no need for name calling you saddo. Oasis may well have been very popular in the uk but they don't mean shit anywhere else. They could barely finish a tour abroad. This comparison again falls down. There are many bands we could argue that are true equals to The Beatles but Oasis just ain't one of them. which are those bands? (if you name the rolling stones I'll completely lose respect for you)
|
|
|
Post by mrmustard on Oct 2, 2008 23:46:59 GMT
There are many bands we could argue that are true equals to The Beatles but Oasis just ain't one of them. which are those bands? (if you name the rolling stones I'll completely lose respect for you) Definitely not the Rolling Stones. Keith Richards guitar playing is as overrated as Oasis. I was more thinking along the lines of The Who, Yes, Queen. They are not better than The Beatles, in my opinion, but a good arguement could be made to rival the Beatles talent, influence and popularity by someone who believed it. An arguement that cannot seriously be made when comparing Oasis.
|
|
|
Post by blueblackbird on Oct 3, 2008 2:42:47 GMT
which are those bands? (if you name the rolling stones I'll completely lose respect for you) Definitely not the Rolling Stones. Keith Richards guitar playing is as overrated as Oasis. I was more thinking along the lines of The Who, Yes, Queen. They are not better than The Beatles, in my opinion, but a good arguement could be made to rival the Beatles talent, influence and popularity by someone who believed it. An arguement that cannot seriously be made when comparing Oasis. of course they're not as talented as The Beatles. man! There is no comparison in talent issues... I was only talking about popularity, at least in the last half of 90's by the way those are great bands! I mean, they can be compared to the beatles because of their innovations, or not? The Who is Rock Yes in Progressive Rock and Queen, well... in many different aspects of music. In terms of innovation I think Led Zeppelin would also fit, don't you think so?
|
|
|
Post by mrmustard on Oct 3, 2008 15:51:57 GMT
by the way those are great bands! I mean, they can be compared to the beatles because of their innovations, or not? The Who is Rock Yes in Progressive Rock and Queen, well... in many different aspects of music. In terms of innovation I think Led Zeppelin would also fit, don't you think so? I agree with you there on Led Zeppelin. Pink Floyd I would also add to the list. I'm really basing it on a combination of talent, innovation and world wide popularity. Ok, so this thread could be re-titled 'other than The Beatles who's your favourite 60/70's rock band?' but the reality is, in my opinion, no one around now or perhaps even the last 10 may be twenty years touches these bands in terms of musicianship, innovation and world wide popularity. The likes of The Kaiser Chiefs, The Killers, Oasis just don't compare in any department. Most likely I will be hauled over the coals on this one!
|
|
|
Post by blueblackbird on Oct 4, 2008 1:50:05 GMT
by the way those are great bands! I mean, they can be compared to the beatles because of their innovations, or not? The Who is Rock Yes in Progressive Rock and Queen, well... in many different aspects of music. In terms of innovation I think Led Zeppelin would also fit, don't you think so? I agree with you there on Led Zeppelin. Pink Floyd I would also add to the list. I'm really basing it on a combination of talent, innovation and world wide popularity. Ok, so this thread could be re-titled 'other than The Beatles who's your favourite 60/70's rock band?' but the reality is, in my opinion, no one around now or perhaps even the last 10 may be twenty years touches these bands in terms of musicianship, innovation and world wide popularity. The likes of The Kaiser Chiefs, The Killers, Oasis just don't compare in any department. Most likely I will be hauled over the coals on this one! Pink Floyd! I've complete forgotten about them! Do you think music innovation is over? I mean real music, not hip hop crap and all of that...
|
|
|
Post by mrmustard on Oct 4, 2008 11:53:29 GMT
I agree with you there on Led Zeppelin. Pink Floyd I would also add to the list. I'm really basing it on a combination of talent, innovation and world wide popularity. Ok, so this thread could be re-titled 'other than The Beatles who's your favourite 60/70's rock band?' but the reality is, in my opinion, no one around now or perhaps even the last 10 may be twenty years touches these bands in terms of musicianship, innovation and world wide popularity. The likes of The Kaiser Chiefs, The Killers, Oasis just don't compare in any department. Most likely I will be hauled over the coals on this one! Pink Floyd! I've complete forgotten about them! Do you think music innovation is over? I mean real music, not hip hop crap and all of that... If you are talking in terms of mainsteam pop and the new big names in the UK then yes music innovation is over. However, I do believe there is still decent, innovative music out there it's just you have to go looking for it because the major record companies won't promote it. Instead they feed us pap. I believe this a major contributing factor to live music being on the wane, in the UK at least, as the majority of clubs and medium sized music venues only seem to have tribute bands on now. All the bands we have mentioned would not still mean so much to us now if we had decent, innovative music still readily available. What's your take on musical innovation today?
|
|
|
Post by blueblackbird on Oct 4, 2008 15:18:39 GMT
I agree... Record companies are a huge set foward for innovation. They won't take the risk of investing on something new, at least this is becoming a trend On the other hand, people don't look interested in new things, because they aren't promoted correctly... If people were interested in new things record companies would pay attetion to them and that's a fact. So, in my opinion we as a society are stucked on the same old things and are not looking foward to changing them....
|
|