The main problem with post-Illmatic Nas is that he got caught up in the same bling-bling/bitch r&b singer on the chorus BS that was so antithetical to the sound/ethos of Illmatic that is like a tragic joke. I have heard and liked some of his stuff, would love to hear some kind of mix from Jewelzy, but overall he gets a C- on content and a F- for legacy destruction.

exactly.

i should do that.

I'm just saying Revolver would be better if it didn't have "Got To Get You Into My Life" tainting it, and that his bridge ruins "A Day In The Life" temporarily. And that his "blues voice" is the epitome of the white peoples' bastardization of the blues and should be shamed accordingly.

McCartney could be fun, and he wrote some affecting, if rather superficial, songs like "For No One", "The Fool on the Hill", "Eleanor Rigby", etc. But he alone is responsible for ruining Abbey Road and for releasing every Beatles hit that irritates me to no end ("Ob-la-di, Ob-la-da"?) As Harrison and Lennon got better, he got worse yet still forced his personality to the forefront of the latter Beatles' work when it just didn't deserve to be.

Two words - Helter Skelter

This is true but I'd say its more like 100X better the first time you see them which will make the records click a lot more and reduce it more to the 10-20X better range.

Incidentally, Dulli's side project, Uptown lights, which plays nothing but soul covers is playing Spaceland tomorrow night and unfortunately I'm going to miss it cause I have to go out of town. I'd delayed my stupid flight a day thinking it was tonight too.

Charles Manson should have picked a better song.

There's something to be said about stopping, while all you have is happy memories.

wow. Paul bastardized the blues huh? I guess we're the first to know that one...

seriously what the fuck are you on about? without Paul on Revolver there is no "Eleanor Rigby" or "Here There and Everywhere" or "For No One" or "Good Day Sunshine." and what in the world is wrong with "Got to Get You Into My Life"? Oof. and Abbey Road--I don't see how his efforts on that album are any better or any worse than any of the other Beatles. In many ways twas not their finest hour. And the bridge in "A Day in the Life" is an amazing and jarring and wonderful break in mood and structure. Totally adds to the song.

Perhaps some of Paul's hits annoyed you, but the obscene amount of strong material he did with the Beatles is too much to even begin to examine in this space. And that's just songwriting..his musical ability is, frankly, staggering, and he provided the Beatles with some incredible music and playing (seriously, one of the greatest bassists of all time I really dont give a crap for the naysayers on this one cos it's just true).

I realize that it is incredibly chic to dis Paul--John was so much cooler, George was so introspective and mysterious, Ringo was a silly rascal who added to the band, but FUCK Paul what the hell did he ever do for the Beatles. That's obvious exaggeration but it never ceases to amaze me how much he is written off or maligned or taken for granted for whatever myriad reasons.

Oh, cos he wrote "Silly Love Songs"? please. For what Paul McCartney did for music, he could write 1,000 versions of "Silly Love Songs" with different verses and tympani arrangements. He's earned it.

and this is NOT all directed at you du&sku...this stuff just comes up so often...

Sugar happened, and it friggin' ruled. I would listen to Sugar over anything else Mould has done, easily. And I frequently do. ALL of his solo albums have left me wanting. They're not bad, but they aren't great, either, even including the Obner-loved Workbook. Oooh, controversial!