Funny how no one mentions the blend of the the voices. They would quite simply never have had the same vocal chemistry in any other line-up.
Their succes rate in other bands would probably have depended on their new bandmates, I suppose either of them could have joined the Stones and still be tremendously successful, Joining Humpy Bong on the other hand might have sunk even the most promising musical career.
matt z · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Fireplace wrote:[/b]
Funny how no one mentions the blend of the the voices. They would quite simply never have had the same vocal chemistry in any other line-up.
Their succes rate in other bands would probably have depended on their new bandmates, I suppose either of them could have joined the Stones and still be tremendously successful, Joining Humpy Bong on the other hand might have sunk even the most promising musical career. [/QUOTE]
HEY quit bashing Humpy Bong, they gave it their Pete Best!
Saint Jiub · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]brENsKi wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]Panchgani wrote:[/b] George Harrison arguably was the most successful solo artist of the four with hits extending into the 1990's.[/QUOTE] arguably by whose reckoning? care to explain where you glean some of your perceived facts from?
[/QUOTE]
...
As I already mentioned ... based on longevity and enduring popularity ...
Lennon and McCartney were done with their top 10 hits by the early eighties.
Harrison had 8 top 10 hits in the late eighties and early nineties.
Fireplace · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]matt z wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Fireplace wrote:[/b]
Funny how no one mentions the blend of the the voices. They would quite simply never have had the same vocal chemistry in any other line-up.
Their succes rate in other bands would probably have depended on their new bandmates, I suppose either of them could have joined the Stones and still be tremendously successful, Joining Humpy Bong on the other hand might have sunk even the most promising musical career. [/QUOTE]
HEY quit bashing Humpy Bong, they gave it their Pete Best! [/QUOTE]
They Stuart Suckliffed! Hmm, that didn´t quite work....
brENsKi · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Panchgani wrote: [/b] [QUOTE]
[b]brENsKi wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]Panchgani wrote:[/b] George Harrison arguably was the most successful solo artist of the four with hits extending into the 1990's.[/QUOTE] arguably by whose reckoning? care to explain where you glean some of your perceived facts from?
[/QUOTE] ...
As I already mentioned ... based on longevity and enduring popularity ...
Lennon and McCartney were done with their top 10 hits by the early eighties.
Harrison had 8 top 10 hits in the late eighties and early nineties.[/QUOTE]
utter rubbish - you're moving the goalposts to "singles" now to suit your argument. you said "most successful" - artists make much money form an album than a single - and macca has made load through the late 80s to date
[b][i]Macca - post "early 80s output" [/i][/b] albums:
1986 - press to play - UK no8 (gold) 1989 - flowers in the dirt - UK no1 (platinum) / USA (gold) 1993 - off the ground - UK no5 (silver) / USA (gold) 1997 - Flaming Pie - UK no2 (gold) / USA no2 (gold) 2005 - Chaos & Creation - UK no10 (gold) / USA no6 (gold) 2007 - memory almost full - UK no5 (gold) / USA no3 (gold) 2012 - kisses on the Bottom - UK no3 / USA no3 2013 - new - Uk no3 / USA no5
Saint Jiub · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]brENsKi wrote: [/b] [QUOTE]
[b]Panchgani wrote: [/b] [QUOTE]
[b]brENsKi wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]Panchgani wrote:[/b] George Harrison arguably was the most successful solo artist of the four with hits extending into the 1990's.[/QUOTE] arguably by whose reckoning? care to explain where you glean some of your perceived facts from?
[/QUOTE] ...
As I already mentioned ... based on longevity and enduring popularity ...
Lennon and McCartney were done with their top 10 hits by the early eighties.
Harrison had 8 top 10 hits in the late eighties and early nineties.[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE] [QUOTE]...[/QUOTE]
you said "most successful" - artists make much money form an album than a single
...
I don't recall saying that. You sure you aren't thinking of someone else?
However, speaking of albums ... After the the early eighties, Paul's platinum albums were only for one his small home country. Comparatively, after the early 1980's George had three platinum albums (one was multi-platinum.
...
PS. I love you too. Baby you're hot. Let's get married.
tero! 48531 · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Panchgani wrote:[/b]
Lennon and McCartney were done with their top 10 hits by the early eighties.
Harrison had 8 top 10 hits in the late eighties and early nineties.[/QUOTE]
Paul still managed a #85 with "Ever Present Past", and Ringo had a #99 hit with the "Liverpool 8" back in 2007.
Both of those chart placements are infinitely better than George has been able to come up with in the past ten years, which supposedly makes them better song writers?
But you're absolutely right about John being the weakest link. He hasn't been able to write a hit in almost 35 years!
Saint Jiub · Member since
Yep.
Ringo's #99 pseudo-hit makes Ringo better than John and George
brENsKi · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Panchgani wrote:[/b]
I don't recall saying that. You sure you aren't thinking of someone else?
[/QUOTE]
then perhaps you need your memory refreshing - i'll quote you again...here you go:-
[QUOTE] [b]Panchgani wrote:[/b]George Harrison arguably was the most successful solo artist of the four with hits extending into the 1990's.[/QUOTE]
and btw - George's last UK/USA top 10 single was "Got My Mind set On You" - 1987 - which came from his final top 10 album - Cloud 9.
last time i checked that unless it had a fucking long chart run - he was not having top 10 hits extending into the 1990s
In fact the ONLY hit he had in either UK or USA was posthumous reissue of MSL.
macca's final top 10 singles were the same year. on the other hand he continued having top 10 albums into the 90s while harrison (still alive) didn't .
funny how you can twist an argument rather than admit you may be wrong.- even going as far as claiming you never said something that i've now quoted you (twice) for - i suspect if i hadn't quoted you - you'd have gone back and edited you orig post.
try admitting you are wrong for a change
Saint Jiub · Member since
dbl post
Saint Jiub · Member since
How can you forget George's band The Traveling Wilburys?
George Singles:
UK US AUS CAN GER IRL NL NOR SWE SWI
"Got My Mind Set on You"19872111719101011
George Promotional Singles:
US-AC US-Main
"Devil's Radio" 1987 - 4
"Cloud 9" 1988 - 9
Traveling Wilburys Singles:
US US-Main US-AC AUS CAN NZ UK
1988 "Handle with Care" 45 2 30 3 — 4 21 1989 "End of the Line" 63 2 28 12 — 11 52
1990 "She's My Baby" — 2 — 45 30 — 79
Other Wilburys charted songs:
US Main CAN NZ UK
1988 "Last Night" 5 — — —
1989 "Heading for the Light" 7 — — —
brENsKi · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Panchgani wrote:[/b]How can you forget George's band The Traveling Wilburys?[/QUOTE]
on that basis your argument gets further destroyed - as Paul had a huge worldwide hit last year "fourfiveseconds" with Rhianna & Kanye West. do you now see how idiotic your comments are?
[QUOTE] [b]Panchgani wrote:[/b]"Got My Mind Set on You" 1987 2 1 1 1 7 1 9 10 10 11
when did 1987/88 become "extended well into the 1990s" ?
what is wrong with you? you really are a d**k of the first order. all this:-
shifting the argument / claiming you never said something/then shifting the argument again/ then disregarding the actual point you initially made (re dates)
are YOU sure you're not Gerry in disguise?
Saint Jiub · Member since
Now you are throwing out insults. Very nice. I love you too honey.
I accidentally hit POST before I finished my response. My full post is above.
I forgot Kayne West. You forgot the Traveling Wilburys. Oh well ...
Retabulating ...
Since the late 80's, George had 8 top 10 hits, Paul had 2 top 10 hits.
...
Also, you misquoted me again ...
I said "extended into the 1990's"
NOT "extended WELL into the 1990's.
brENsKi · Member since
harrison never had a 90s hit single
and those two you quote above were also 80s (promo singles) and their chart placings were not the official sales charts they were two specialist charts "billiboard adult contemporary" and "mainstream rock"
you can't help yourself can you?
you just proved my point. incapable of admitting you are wrong. just keep moving those goalposts Gerry.
no point discussing further with you. carry on making your worthless, inaccurate, buffoon-based imaginings....anyone reading this thread can see you've chopped and changed your argument rather than admit being wrong.
have your last word...enjoy it. good luck with the brain implant operation - your previous five have rejected you
una999 · Member since
S[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]una999 wrote:[/b]
I think it's an irrelevant question. Queen were queen. That's why queen sounded like that because of the 4 members. It's like asking if your dad never met your mother. [/QUOTE]
no it isn't.
discussion is discussion - it makes life interesting
and it's nothing like asking if your dad never met your mother[/QUOTE]
Yes it is. Your reply was as irrelevant as the question asked.
