I hate it when these kind of things happen. My wife treated me to Bruce Springsteen tickets at Hyde Park a few years back. It was an amazing Concert, until Paul bleeding Mcartney strolled onto the stage and ruined the evening. It would appear that when Heather Mills took all of his money, she also pocketed any last shred of talent that the man had had, and he didn't have too much to start with.
On a note more about Isaac, he has told Sky TV that he is at Watford because that's where Ighalo is and Iggy is his mentor.
Thoughts on this? http://africanfootball.com//news/65...-tie-after-he-refused-to-buy-ticket-official? 1. Why would Success turn down the opportunity to play for his country? 2. Do they really think he would feign injury to avoid international duty? Seems v far fetched to me.
A lot of stories seem to come out of Nigeria about him and Ighalo. Clearly there's a habit of agents openly briefing the press and the FA doing the same. Ultimately he says he's injured. If Nigeria dispute it there's a method by which they can ask Watford to prove it. Whether they've actually done that or not will probably indicate whether what that article says is true or not.
I'm with you about the last shred of talent, but I'd vigorously deny that he had little to start with. Lennon was the more imaginative half of the duo, but he was sloppy and his stuff needed McCartney's professionalism to tidy it up. Neither was anything like as good without the other. This is an important factor to bear in mind when discussing Isaac Success.
Success definitely got fouled on the touchline near the benches. He got a knee into his thigh and took a while to get running again. Looked very much like a possible dead leg so I really don't understand what the nff are playing at here ?
Maybe I was a little harsh, as I quite enjoyed his work both with the Beatles, and later with Wings. I still reckon he should knock it on the head now though!
I think harsh is a bt of an understatement, particularly as he was in his 70's at the time. [video=youtube;kDAMRMQr48g]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDAMRMQr48g[/video]
About the most sensible thing l`ve heard you say. The Beatles were simply awful. At least the stuff Lennon did post Beatles had some merit. McCartney`s magnum opus...Frog Chorus ffs.
I'm not the world's greatest Beatles fan but what utter bilge. Rubber Soul, Revolver, Magical mystery Tour, Sgt Pepper - in just those 4 albums pop/rock was completely redefined; the songwriting is genius. Lennon post Beatles, on the other hand, mawkish, self indulgent, no good tunes.
The song writing is genius? She loves you, yeah yeah yeah. You`re right. Only a genius could have penned that.
Take a look at She Loves You in its original context, plus the fact that it was right at the beginning of their song writing career. It was years ahead of anything else, let alone in Britain. Just about every artist that's stated their influences since the 60s has listed The Beatles as a major impact. Lennon after The Beatles; Somewhere between mediocre and dreadful bilge-water. His best solo songs were written in the Beatles period (Imagine etc.) There. I've said it and I don't care if you're trolling
What a ****. From the top of my head: Yesterday Eleanor Rigby Back in the USSR Ive Just Seen a Face It's getting Better All The Time Penny Lane And i Love Her Paperback Writer A Day In The Life Blackbird Norwegian Wood Eight Days A Week Fool on the Hill Here, There, Everywhere Here Comes The Sun Got to get You Into My Life I Saw Her Standing There It's Only Love She's Leaving Home We Can Work It Out With A Little Help From My Friends Day Tripper Michelle Hello Goodbye Lady Madonna Let It Be and (as they say) many more
I'm sure you're just disingenuously missing the entire point. Their importance is the fact they were the first group successfully to write their own songs for themselves to perform, thereby blowing apart the cosy world of "pop" which managed to portray Cliff Richard as a "rebel" and successfully emasculated anything a bit "dangerous", such as early Elvis. True, some of their early efforts seem a bit "twee" from 50+ years away, but even they were incredibly dynamic in the context of a popular music culture where the charts were dominated by such as Frankie Vaughan, Matt Monro etc etc. More to the point, their songwriting developed at breathtaking speed, resulting in such as A Day In The Life within only 5 years. After all, that Henry Ford was a right muppet...who can praise someone who designed that really naff T-Model? Personally, I preferred the Who, but no-one like them, or the Stones, Kinks, etc etc would have existed without the Beatles.
Helter Skelter was a bit contrived, being their (admitted) attempt to respond to the Who's (superior) I Can See For Miles.
We could get into a debate about how that was the first ever true pop song, but as it wasn't on any of the albums mentioned it's moot.
To be honest, what is deemed "popular music" really depends on contemporary styles. You'd be going back way beyond the Glenn Miller Orchestra to find the first ever pop song, and it would probably be on a wax cylinder!
Maybe we did the old Ryan Giggs trick? http://www.hertfordshiremercury.co....uad-reports/story-29794081-detail/story.html? And how many times was he banned from a Man U game for such an incident...
Woman, Beautiful Boy, Starting Over. Piles of cancerous scheist that Brotherhood of Man wouldn't have covered until Lennon's death made them classics. Sad to say, but McCartney was the talent that Lennon thrived on being close to, and Yoko was the nothingness anti-talent that sucked him into his post Beatles hole. And I quite like Yoko.