(!)

My respect!!

What I would like to ask DeLorenzo is this: how is it possible that man cannot create a society based on equality, being penalized by his selfish nature, yet can create a democratic one instead? What "mature democracy" do you think can be formed if you do not believe in man and compare him more or less to a dog?

What a shame to have to respond to idiots.. I don’t feel like it, why waste this time?

ZZOT@ it's not that strange to talk about the creative tastes of the two authors who wrote the history of pop and compare their compositions, right?.. we are on De Baser.

@ London, I know very well that you didn't mean to be critical of my positions, I'm sorry if I made you think that.

ZZOT@, let's take Penny Lane and Strawberry Fields.. there the difference is very evident, they address the same subject in the same 45 RPM, the places of their childhood. The first, Paul's, is sunny, playful, extroverted, with extreme cleanliness, talking about real and simple characters like the barber, the firefighter, the banker, the florist... the second tends to bridge the real and the unreal, John delves more into his soul, wandering dreamily in a real orphanage near his home, but he doesn't dwell on what he sees outside, but on what he sees inside himself. Both are pieces of rare beauty, but it speaks volumes about the way the two understand compositional ideas.. even though in this case the pieces are equal in quality.

Macca is a workaholic by nature, in terms of quantity, no one can beat him, unfortunately he doesn't always work inspired by true creativity; very often he writes out of duty and you can tell... oh yes. Obviously, we are talking about Paul, his worst works would make many songwriters happy...

London@ that have to do with stereotypes, what I think about Paul was also thought by John and George (...just to say) and many others who were far from being inclined to clichés; it's a well-known fact. I didn’t say: McCartney sentimental, George spiritual, etc. I only highlighted that Paul had a different attitude and approach than John when it came to composition. Many songs he created were for simple fun, with a more superficial touch, despite having perhaps a superior musical class compared to John. He loved to sing stories about insignificant imaginary characters like Desmond and Molly or Maxwell's Silver Hammer (not just the beautiful Eleanor Rigby); this is surely due to a character that is typically sunny and joyful, less prone to introspective contortions, which is good for him, but the result all too often was the creation of silly and frivolous songs... he admitted it himself, more than that. However, I possess the complete discography of Paul and John as solo artists, almost complete for George, and a couple for Ringo... I'm not that ignorant about the Beatles.

Den Vlaams, you're embarrassing not only for your stupidity but also for your complete lack of realism, but what are you hissing? You've received most of the negative criticisms, not me. You were the first to insult the debaser users "for free." If they ban me, they should confiscate your keyboard and monitor for a couple of years.

I think Paul lacked the depth and introspection that inspired John; unfortunately, besides true masterpieces, Paul also collected an illogical amount of "nice nonsense"... a real shame for his exceptional musical potential.