The Tribute/Nostalgia Saga Continues...BEATLES Style

**UnleashVH** · 06.06.02, 11:46 AM

I was reading the following article and was amused, considering that it was eerily familiar in tone to what I have been reading in many threads here over the past few months:

All You Need Is Paul: Will No One Speak Out On Paul McCartney's Performing Beatles Songs?

Well, what do you know?--The second-to-last paragraph had the following:

I'll even stoop lower and make the Van Halen argument: After lead singer David Lee Roth left the band, they kept on playing the hits "Ain't Talkin' 'Bout Love," "Panama," and "Jump"--but with Sammy Hagar on vocals. It's just unseemly. (Funny how things turn out: Roth and Hagar, both having been kicked out of the band, recently performed together--but with a no-name performing the signature Eddie Van Halen guitar solos. Shame and indignity all around!)

I hope you find the article as amusing as I did...

**The Full BuD** · 06.06.02, 12:15 PM

Yet another stupid insight...

First, the Beatles thing. Of course Paul has the rights to do those Beatles songs, even the ones he didn't sing on. All of the songwriting credits for his' and John's songs are Lennon/McCartney. It's a known fact that even if, say Paul didn't sing on a John song, he still helped with arrangement and key changes and such. Very few Beatles songs were true "solo" songs. Besides like the guy said, you can't compare other bands to the Beatles in many ways. They set the trends and could do whatever the hell they wanted with their songs. Yoko has done far worse things with Beatles songs than Paul ever has (Nike commercials, etc.). Also Paul obviously sings John's songs in tribute, since the guy hasn't been around for 22 years, and new Beatles fans are born all of the time.

As far as the tired Van Halen thing goes, that was just lame. Sammy only did pretty much those 3 songs listed in the article, and didn't try to copy Dave's routine. Eddie wrote the music, so he can play whatever the hell he wants. When Eddie starts playing 99% Dave-era VH with a Dave clone, then that guy can talk shit.

Damn all of this gets old...

**cyberfiddl** · 06.06.02, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by The Full BuD:
It's a known fact that even if, say Paul didn't sing on a John song, he still helped with arrangement and key changes and such. Very few Beatles songs were true "solo" songs.

Jesus, are we gonna pile Beatles know-it-alls on top of the VH know-it-alls here? And, what's up with that dumbass article?
In 1968, the Beatles recorded a little-known self-titled album <deep, unfathomable sarcasm>. Anyone familiar with the Beatles knows that most of those songs were solo compositions simply because the guys just got tired of the process of togetherness. We're talkin 24/7 togetherness. They were starting families. They were growing up, and growing out of the Beatles. Even Sir George Martin remarked that the album probably should have been a single disk. Anyone remember the video of the sessions? For example George's remark to Paul, "I'll play it how ever you want. I won't even play at all" to paraphrase. At least the Beatles saw the end coming and blessed us with Abbey Road. That, unfortunately, is more than we can hope for Van Halen.
How sad to even equate the Mighty Van Halen to the Beatles. Two great bands. One light years ahead of the other. Don't make me elaborate.

**The Full BuD** · 06.06.02, 01:27 PM

First of all, smartass, I don't claim to be a Beatles or VH know-it-all. Beatles always had shared songwriting credits, so the songs are fair game, that's all. Secondly, if you understood the meaning of my rant, it's absolutely fucking retarded to compare VH to the Beatles in any way, shape, or form. The article just was comparing apples to oranges and was a complete waste of time by whoever wrote it. Now that I think about it, maybe even responding to the article was another waste.

**thinlineokc** · 06.06.02, 01:34 PM

Doesn't Michael Jackson own the rights to the Beatles songs?

**Hecubus** · 06.07.02, 01:33 PM

I believe Paul actually either recently had the opportunity to buy them back or he did.

Either way, the day the child molester got ownership of those gems, it was a sad day in rock & roll.

**NxtVanHalen.** · 06.08.02, 06:36 PM

I think he still has the rights to them but is in debt with the Record company (200 million in studio time I believe!) and they are gonna call it even if he signs over the rights to the Beatles song and from what I understand it is still in the air as to what is going to happen.

[ June 08, 2002, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: NxtVanHalen. ]

**Blind Willie Loons** · 06.08.02, 07:48 PM

Sammy also butchered YRGM an' RWTD. [img]graemlins/devil.gif[/img]

**SMUDGE NYC** · 06.10.02, 09:17 AM

I know it's "cool" to blame Yoko for everything, but Nyke was Michael Jackson's doing, NOT hers

**The Full BuD** · 06.10.02, 09:46 AM

Yeah, but Yoko did let Nike use "Instant Karma" which is one of John's songs that Michael Jackson doesn't have access to.

But I have more serious issues with Yoko other than that or the whole "breakup" thing.

**ericgtr** · 06.10.02, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by The Full BuD:
Yet another stupid insight...

First, the Beatles thing. Of course Paul has the rights to do those Beatles songs, even the ones he didn't sing on. All of the songwriting credits for his' and John's songs are Lennon/McCartney. It's a known fact that even if, say Paul didn't sing on a John song, he still helped with arrangement and key changes and such. Very few Beatles songs were true "solo" songs. Besides like the guy said, you can't compare other bands to the Beatles in many ways. They set the trends and could do whatever the hell they wanted with their songs. Yoko has done far worse things with Beatles songs than Paul ever has (Nike commercials, etc.). Also Paul obviously sings John's songs in tribute, since the guy hasn't been around for 22 years, and new Beatles fans are born all of the time.

As far as the tired Van Halen thing goes, that was just lame. Sammy only did pretty much those 3 songs listed in the article, and didn't try to copy Dave's routine. Eddie wrote the music, so he can play whatever the hell he wants. When Eddie starts playing 99% Dave-era VH with a Dave clone, then that guy can talk shit.

Damn all of this gets old...

Full Bud, I have been making this same argument for some time here but never got it across as well as you just did, thanks for making this point for me. Ed always writes the music and it should, rightfully, be his to do with what he wants.