| | | |
Tom O'Brien
|
10/30/2009 9:15:39 PM
John or Paul?
And don't say Ringo!
|
|
Jeff Allen Myers
|
10/31/2009 1:01:58 AM
---- Updated 10/31/2009 1:04:35 AM
I used to be squarely in John's Corner, but the older I get and the more I learn about the Beatles...the more I appreciate McCartney and his role . I do believe he was the Musical backbone. He was the perfect match to Lennon's cynic nature...both made each other better. Lennon's Iconic state grew more and more after his death, and I do believe when McCartney passes his legacy will be incredible...and we will all miss him terribly. Lennon and McCartney...... their names will be linked forever. It really does not matter who you like more, the two together are magical. Harrison's chemistry fit perfect as well. Ringo?? He had his moments,and who knows what would have happened with a different drummer.
I do Know Lennon could be a world class ass at times, and McCartney could be egotistical...Harrison was quiet but shrewed. Ringo was affable....It all came together at the right time...Lightning in a bottle.
|
|
never never band
|
10/31/2009 1:39:41 AM
Man I get tired of this question...
It's like saying which is better, Cello of Viola?
|
|
Tony Vani and Debbie Hoskin
|
10/31/2009 8:28:01 AM
I'm not a big fan of Paul. Never was.
|
|
Jeff Allen Myers
|
10/31/2009 12:11:43 PM
Cello or Viola? They re both needed, as is the Violin :) As for me I never get tired of the topic...plus there is really not a hell of alot going on here at the moment.
Debbie, I think you are suffering from classic over exposure. You either love, hate, or don't care either way He has some great songs..period.His musical legacy is felt today...in ALL genres. If you are lucky enough to see him Live you will see how really great he is. It's easy to look back and dismiss him, and the impact that was made. Listen to the charts of the time, and you will see the separation. The man is 67 years old and still sounding pretty damn good today. I give him props for that! Alot of artists lose it completely when they hit their sixties.
But thats just your opinion, and it's cool. I am a little biased if you can't tell :)
Regards,
Jeff
|
|
Tony Vani and Debbie Hoskin
|
10/31/2009 12:31:45 PM
You're absolutely right Jeff. I agree. He is a musical legacy for sure. He's one of the greats of all time. I've just never been a big fan of his; not sure why; can't even put my finger on it. He has a couple of songs, however, that are favorites of mine like "long and winding road" and "let it be" and "yesterday" I really love those songs.
|
|
Jeff Allen Myers
|
10/31/2009 12:55:16 PM
Well if someone "Loved" one of my songs I would deem that a success. :)
You just named three songs and that is pretty good! , Most don't even get one :)
|
|
Hop On Pop
|
10/31/2009 2:32:51 PM
The Beatles were not The Beatles without any one of them; it took all 4 (yes, Ringo, too). So, I can only take it to apply to their solo albums. In that case, I would have to take them one by one because there are some that I like more than others. Both had some amazing albums and both had some clunkers.
But, you know. I don't have time to go through those one-by-one that this point.
I love music.
|
|
Jeff Allen Myers
|
10/31/2009 3:39:43 PM
Having played with about 25 drummers "Back in the day" I can appreciate Ringo, but I believe without him, with an excellent Drummer in his place, the Beatles still would have had the the great music. Now some like his dopey Charm, I am not one of them.
I am not dismissing him, he did "Great" work. The new Mastered versions really make him shine. He was a vital part of the Beatles, but as a writer and singer...and my exposure to many different drummers I just take a different view of drummers in the creative process.
And make no Mistake, McCartney had a big hand in the arrangement of drums as well. There are many who believe he is actually playing on some of the songs. I don't believe that...but I know he added a few tracks here and there.
|
|
The Man With No Band
|
10/31/2009 4:49:21 PM
John ... A vision beyond sight ... Some one who bled through his music ... No facade ...
no dissing Paul ... But I think John was purer to his beliefs ...
|
|
Tony Vani and Debbie Hoskin
|
10/31/2009 5:07:45 PM
I feel the same way about John.
It's not that I dislike Paul, I'm just not his #1 fan, even though there were numerous songs of his that I loved.
Paul always seemed more commercial than John. John seemed to write more from his heart while, my gut feeling was always that Paul was writing for commerical success. Yet, he still had some very hearfelt songs along the way.
|
|
Tom O'Brien
|
11/1/2009 3:36:14 PM
You're obviously right in saying that it was the chemistry that did it, and yes, Lennon and McCartney will be forever linked. But I think Paul was the artist of the two, was more creative with poetry and melody. Perhaps John was the brain and Paul was the heart, and I can't say which of those two organs are my favorite either.
|
|
Bob Elliott
|
11/1/2009 7:51:08 PM
I don't prefer either over the other in the long run.
I've never heard anyone accuse John of being the head and Paul the heart before, but I often hear it the other way around, and I think that is just a silly underestimation of Paul which happens a lot.
I will always stand on anyone's drum stool and sing the praises of Ringo. I think he is about the best drummer I ever heard, the most musical leaving most others behind making beats while he was making music.
I think the key to the Beatles is you start with talented people (a talent not unmatched by other musically inclined people) and then put them in Hamburg strip clubs for 8 hour shifts seven nights a week 280 days in a year. That is how four talented people became The Beatles: time on task. More time working it out live together than most people will ever have in a whole band career, and they had all that time before they even got signed.
Extraordinary talent is a function of talent plus extraordinary amounts of time...
|
|
Jeff Allen Myers
|
11/2/2009 12:17:25 AM
---- Updated 11/2/2009 12:20:27 AM
Ringo's Mechanics are all f'd up...doing rolls from left to right, instead of right to left. As I said, he was a great fit...and it is hard to say what the songs in a more accomplished drummers hands would sound like.
I am not bashing Ringo, it's just that I have just been around the block playing in many different rhythm sections...playing with drummers that no one will ever hear of.... but were incredible. I am talking Dave Weckle, Steve Gadd, Bill Bruford caliber drummers.
Maybe the Beatles songs needed someone who was "In the pocket" with tasty bits thrown in here and there. It certainly worked..big time!!! A more accomplished drummer might have been counter active. What made the Beatles great began with songs..The Melodies, Harmonies, Voices, Arrangements. Technical ability on their respective instruments is far down the list.
And yes, make no mistake...Technical ability is only a small bit of the puzzle...Far behind heart and creativity. Ringo certainly had the latter.
Ringo is just not a great (Technical)drummer relative to other drummers. I am a huge Beatles fan (If you have not noticed) But I am also a musician..and a realist. As you state Bob, he was very "musical" and that may be the most important skill any musician can have.
Respectfully,
Jeff
|
|
Richard Scotti
|
11/2/2009 7:57:26 AM
---- Updated 11/2/2009 12:44:24 PM
Ringo once said he never plays the same fill the same way twice. I think that was one of his main strengths: unexpected and/or surprising fills that were always exciting and creative. He also made great use of the open hi-hat and ride cymbal which were often mixed very up front in the mixes of the early songs.
On the subject of John or Paul, why speculate? At different stages in my life each one of the four meant something special to me. They were four sides of one unique object, a perfect storm of combined talents and personalities where the sum was greater than the parts. I've grown to love them all equally as a conceptual memory. There will never be another confluence of energies like that again. I don't want to rank them individually in any kind of hierarchy.
|
|
Jeff Allen Myers
|
11/2/2009 4:40:36 PM
---- Updated 11/2/2009 4:40:53 PM
Perhaps you should read EVERY word I wrote Laree...No where did I say his drumming was F'd up. His Mechanics were, but many musicians make their playing style work....as did Ringo.
|
|
Jeff Allen Myers
|
11/3/2009 11:08:50 PM
The timing in the tom roll in "come together" is a result of his mechanics..the slight delay was caused by his opposite roll technique. So yea, it created something cool :)
|
|
|
11/4/2009 12:58:56 PM
A team.
Competitors and co-consipirators.
You can never shake the bond formed at that age, in the hometown.
The bond was forged and tempered as young men abroad in that skank-town of Hamburg.
They were already seasoned show-biz vets when they hit America in '64
Paul needed John and John needed Paul
They were both flawed. It's the way they embraced their flaws that finally set them apart and highlighted the differences.
|
|
|
11/4/2009 1:13:06 PM
"the more I appreciate McCartney and his role . I do believe he was the Musical backbone."
Hmmm ... that is the reworking of the Beatles myths that have you believing that.
It's not quite true.
Paul and John both could play guitar (but not as good as George).
Paul and John both could play piano and mellotron.
Paul and John both could play drums.
Paul and John both could sing very well.
It is just that John always pushed 'the Bealtes' as a group.
A group he invited Paul into to make stronger, better.
Paul always niggled at pushing his own legend, his own myth.
The musical backbone in all of it was George Martin.
Without his hand and ear things would have been vastly different.
The difference is Paul still to this day will not accept that, nor will he ever stop proving that he was the musical backbone despite what anyone says to the contrary.
What will be interesting is how the Beatles story changes when Ringo dies and Paul is left alive. Paul has already changed the Beatles story after John died and George died.
|
|
Tom O'Brien
|
11/4/2009 1:29:19 PM
No doubt, George Martin is the essential element in the Beatles' musical development.
George and John liked Paul because he knew how to tune a guitar - they used to have some older guy up the lane do it for them, so I think Paul had the inborn talent, and was just the most naturally musical gifted. From my teaching days, I know that some kids are just naturally musical and some kids have to learn it. I've always felt that, Liverpool being so close to Ireland, they had the influence of the great Irish music tradition and love of words.
|
|
Jeff Allen Myers
|
11/4/2009 4:39:26 PM
---- Updated 11/4/2009 4:46:57 PM
" the more I appreciate McCartney and his role . I do believe he was the Musical backbone." I said that :)
"Hmmm ... that is the reworking of the Beatles myths that have you believing that"
Flame top said that....
With all due respect, I do not base my opinion on the latest news or "Positioning" by the living Beatles, or Beatles wives in the Beatles Legacy.
I am an avid reader of all things Beatles, To name , but a few...I have the Lewisohn "Recording Books", "Anthology", Martins 'All you need is ears", Emericks "Here there and Everywhere", the Epic "Recording the Beatles", Hunter Davies original Autobiography', and a million quotes over the years.
I have formed an opinion after digesting the info, and meshing them.
Martin was a great arranger, and a very efficient musician. That said, some of his arrangements were transcribed from Paul Singing them. His Keyboard solos were often sped up...the solo for "In My Life" was played at a much slower tempo. He was a great Fit, and I regard him as the true "Fifth" Beatle.
The Backbone" is probably too strong a word to use for any of them because of the great Chemistry....However Paul was a "huge" musical force within The Beatles.
Lennon, was a great writer, but he was not much for details in the arrangements. He would often say..."I want it to sound like I am singing to the Dalai Llama from a mountain top". He once had the idea to hang from a rope from the ceiling, and while spinning in circles record a vocal. :)
Lennon as a Musician??? He was proficient, not great. Many of us on this site are his equal as Guitar players/Keyboardists. Many here have surpassed Lennons talent as a musician.As a writer and Singer??? ....Not so much :) McCartney on the other hand, few of us here are his equal as a Musician. I saw him Six times in Concert, he is amazing. Seriously...Piano, Guitar,, Bass Vocals.... he plays decent Drums as well. I base these opinions on being a musician myself. He impressed me every time.
Of course this is just my informed opinion. In the end, my opinion is no more important then the guy with just a passing interest.. So it's ok to call me a Beatles Full of Shit Snob :)
FYI - I love Lennon and McCartney equally......
|
|
Tao Jones
|
11/4/2009 4:59:40 PM
I think Flametop is on the money when pointing out the things both John and Paul could do. People have always wanted to see them as split talents, one doing what the other didn't, but I never have seen it that way. They like to say Paul is better with melody, john with words. I think that is silly since they are both good at words and melodies.
I think they were both good at much the same things with a few exceptions.
They just outworked everyone else, and were each appreciative of the other and didn't try to be the only one as happens in many other bands.
|
|
Beth Fridinger
|
11/4/2009 5:20:11 PM
Interesting discussion. I always liked John's sarcastic bite...he balanced Paul's mellowness; John's raw emotion/opinion, Paul's commercialism. I like them all. Well John also played some piano...Paul plays mandolin as well as the bass, the guitar, keyboards, and drums. I saw Paul in an interview where they guy said "You don't read music do you" and Paul said "No, is that a problem?" That was funny. Interesting about Ringo and the drums. I don't know enough about drums to judge or comment really.
|
|
Jeff Allen Myers
|
11/4/2009 5:52:11 PM
Bob, Paul is better then John on just about every instrument
Piano - Paul (Paul played Piano on Lennons "Sexie Sadie"...nuff said)
Bass - No Contest
Guitar - Acoustic - Leans toward McCartney (I will, Blackbird) - Johns best work "Julia" Travis Picking taught by Donovan
Electric Rhythm - Slight nod to Lennon, simply because volume of work
Solo Guitar - McCartney (McCartney played Lead on Harrisons "Taxman) nuff said)
Vocal - Toss up....equal Magic.
Again, just my opinion...
|
|
Bob Elliott
|
11/4/2009 8:03:45 PM
I guess I don't know. To me 'better' is only judged by what I feel like hearing. I like to hear the way John plays at least as much as how Paul plays, and to be honest a bit more. Like on demos and stuff. Something interesting to me in how John plays...
They both have that 'musician' thing...
|
|
Jeff Allen Myers
|
11/5/2009 1:03:18 AM
---- Updated 11/5/2009 1:03:40 AM
Bob, You are a far better Guitar player then Lennon...Believe it dude :)
The older I get, the more I think of the two of them as just People, one of the Guys.....Like each of us. When I was younger they were like Gods, now I think I could just hang with them and Jam :) .... It's a nice dream....
|
|
|
11/5/2009 12:48:22 PM
---- Updated 11/5/2009 12:49:05 PM
Jeff, with all due respect .... Jeff YOU IGNORANT SLUT
John was a far better guitar player - or at least far more unique. And most certainly in the area of rhythm guitar playing, John is very, very underrated. In just about all the early Beatles stuff, the song drive comes from John's playing. The thing is that at times it is hard to hear his specific playing, but it is what locks the song together.
True - this is hard to hear in many recordings. But by process of eliminatrion (I hear the drums, I hear the bass, I hear George's guitar .....) John's chops are sharp and pretty amazing ... certainly never duplicated.
Paul did create some great lead guitar work.
So did John. ... what's that track on White Album ... where John plays the kind of french parlour electric guitar part ... anyway
To my mind though, Paul's guitar work never contained that certain something that John's did ... call it individual guitar voice or expression.
One of my favorite Beatles guitar moments is the three of them trading solos on the "The End" jam. I forget the order ... but it sounds like they were having fun. Not sure if they did that live, together? I hope so.
John was by far the better of the two at acoustic guitar playing.
But they were both very good and god darn it, wrote a lot of great acoustic guitar songs. John's finger picking (learned from Donovan) was just a little better, a little more thorough.
While Paul might have had the slight edge in piano playing, it was John's piano playing that stood out in so many of their tracks, as being quite unique.
I cite Paul's "Let it Be" piano work to John's "Imagine"
In that case it's easy to compare (even though Imagine came after the Beatles)
I like John's touch on the piano more than Paul's ... there is something more individual and expressive about John's piano
anyway, they were both pretty good ... good enough
I often wonder what the Beatles would have been liked if Roy Young had joined them? A 5-piece Beatles? Would have changed the landscape for keyboard players .... might have seen synthesizers come out far earlier. Who knows?
I am a piano player, and I have always found their piano playing on equal footing.
( Remember too that many Beatles piano tracks are the two of them sitting side by side on the piano bench - or maybe having George Martin on piano with one or the other of them at times.)
Anyway, it's all moot and academic.
But sure can get us all fired up, still to this day.
What John did in the early days was assemble a band.
He drove that band, even to the point of bullying his bandmates.
John pushed Paul to be better, be different.
Paul pushed back. That seemed to create some splendid fire and magic.
They were brothers, or more than that, they were musically married in the Beatles.
This seems to be the case for all the great bands. Getting married musically.
Which naturally makes the divorce pretty nasty.
They were a trio from about 1957.
They were a tight band from 1962 through to 1965.
They reached their pinnacle in 1967.
They evolved as expressive musicians during 1968 (still my favorite Beatles year).
"Ballad of John and Yoko" still holds the magic for me, of what there was between the two of them.
Paul was always better with John.
John was always better with Paul.
I think it was Linda McCartney that pointed out "they were like a mirror image of each other. John right-handed, Paul left-handed. When they sat across from each other working on songs, it was like one person working in front of a mirror"
But I digress.
Great band. Great songwriters. Great singers.
and everyone misses how entertaining they were. They were Entertainers with personalities ... we don't seem to have so many of those anymore.
lucky bastards
|
|
|
11/5/2009 1:00:47 PM
Originally I was a Paul fan.
The first records I owned at 13 years old were:
McCartney & Wings - Band on the Run
Beatles Anthology (Red 62-67 and Blue 67-70)
I got all of those in October and December 1973. Almost at the same time as Elton John's 'Don't Shoot Me I'm Just the Piano Player' and 'Led Zep IV' ...so all that music is a whirl in my soulbrain. That was the start of my record collection.
A N Y W A Y
I started out more of a McCartney disciple.
No mistake: McCartney's songwriting and production prowess can immediately draw one in. His hits are immediate.
Lennon was more of the slow-appreciation for me.
And I always held the whole band and the two of them in high esteem.
It would be just the little quips, the little slight-of-hand that McCartney would say or do that would gradually piss me off. He really has this thing about proving how he was the one true talent in the Beatles. He HAS been re-writing Beatles history. He can't just leave it be .... I guess his thing that he will take to the grave.
So anyway, that always kind of spoils it for me, with regards to Paul. Those slights and manipulations. There was always this something under the veneer that was less than sincere.
Not that they weren't both huge assholes at times.
|
|
|
11/5/2009 1:02:08 PM
: ) heh hee
in regards to the Beatles, McCartney can't "let it be"
|
|
Jeff Allen Myers
|
11/5/2009 3:31:26 PM
---- Updated 11/5/2009 3:34:06 PM
You a funny guy flame top Freddie :) Ignorant? Not when it comes to the Beatles....
We can bore the hell out the site of you wish, but I am no hack...and if you haven't noticed I am a musician.
Comparing Piano ability with "Let it Be" vs. "Imagine" ? Please I can play both and I am a novice Piano Player. How about listing "Martha My Dear"? or as I pointed out, John trusted Sexie Sadie to Paul on Piano. Its more then his usual technique.
As for acoustic guitar? I learned the "Travis Picking" technique for Julia in a day, I wrote a song to honor my Mom based on it. Played at twice the speed. the song is "Mother Mary" check it out :)
I love John, don't get me wrong. I believe he is a better Artist then Musician.That is not to say he is not an excellent musician, he is. Sure his Rhythm Guitar playing was tight, I would think nothing less. They were a tight band. His playing on 'All my Loving" is impressive!
This is a fun little discussion, no one is wrong its just opinions... you are obviously well versed in The Beatles...and that makes you ok in my book. You have my respect..... Just don't call me ignorant....Ya bleeding Bastid!!! :)~
|
|
Bob Elliott
|
11/5/2009 4:56:59 PM
Nah, I'm not a better player than John, and I find playing Julia to be a bit tricky if I have to get every note.
But I think I share something with his playing. See, I'm for some reason, not very technically good of a player even after all these years, and that has always been a problem, but what I do have that can work some magic is a certain feeling to it. I don't play anything real hard, but there is a personality to it.
John's playing always has that personality element to it, and that is what I mean when I say I am often more interested in listening to his playing.
So by my lights that makes him a great musician. In fact, that is generally all I am looking for when thinking of what makes a great musician: that personality that makes me want to hear it.
Technical prowess means little to me unless they have that.
Jimi is technically great, but he has personality to go with it. Other slingers have all the technical proficiency, but often lack any personality element, and I can't listen much over a minute or two.
John's playing just has that "music stuff" I long to hear, so I still say he was every bit the musician McCartney was.
But I am a fan of McCartney, and his first two solo albums are a couple of my all time favorite albums.
So is Plastic Ono Band...
|
|
Jeff Allen Myers
|
11/5/2009 5:06:49 PM
---- Updated 11/5/2009 5:08:37 PM
I don't know Bob, your tune 'First Contact" is some pretty damn good playing :)
John used the travis picking again in "Happiness is a warm gun" and then on his solo "Look at me" . McCartney relied on a specific strumming/Picking style on many tunes as well , "Blackbird" for one
I could go on for days...sorry boys :)
|
|
Bob Elliott
|
11/5/2009 5:23:51 PM
"I don't know Bob, your tune 'First Contact" is some pretty damn good playing :)"
Thanks Mon, but if you just drop your E string to D and put a capo on the third fret, you'll find it ain't that hard of a song...
|
|
Jeff Allen Myers
|
11/5/2009 7:49:39 PM
"Thanks Mon, but if you just drop your E string to D and put a capo on the third fret, you'll find it ain't that hard of a song...:
Don't sell yourself short Bob, that;s like saying Just drop your shorts and you can be a pornstar :) I believe there is a bit more involved :)~
|
|
|
11/6/2009 10:22:31 AM
The power in the Beatles was the two front men.
That can't be stressed enough.
When you look at old footage of bands from the 1950's or 1960's it was only the Everley Brothers that had two lead singers. But they were country, pop at best and certainly didn't have the power behind them.
Zooming ahead to 1962-1964 the simple and powerful presentation of the Beatles as a band with two lead singers (one left handed one right) hit the world with a mighty wallop.
Just as with Elvis it was the TV appearance (especially of course on Ed Sullivan) that propelled those acts to mania. Elvis looked incredible on TV. The Beatles burst out of TV sets everywhere .... and I wager TV added millions more to record sales than radio.
It helped that they had talent to back up their TV image.
|
|
Jeff Allen Myers
|
11/6/2009 12:18:42 PM
It sucks that Sullivan butchered the mix, Lennon can barely be heard on a few tunes :)
The Everly brothers had a big influence on them, The Everly's tunes stand the test of time.
|
|
The Man With No Band
|
11/6/2009 12:43:34 PM
I woke up this morning with "From Me to You" playing in my head ...
"McCartney/Lennon" one of the many early co-writes ... Lennon wrote the first line ... as in many of their co-writes .... interestingly, this was one of the last tunes to be labled "McCartney/Lennon" ... then IMO they got it right and changed to "Lennon/McCartney" ...
A funny thing on "From Me to You" ...
singer Kenny Lynch, upon hearing The Beatles singing "ooh", remarked "You can't do that. You'll sound like a bunch of fucking fairies!" Soon afterwards he stormed off, declaring the Beatles didn't know anything about songwriting.Roger Greenway recounted the story:
John and Paul were sitting at the back of the coach and Kenny Lynch, who at this time fancied himself as a songwriter, sauntered up to the back of the coach and Kenny Lynch ... decided he would help them write a song. After a period of about half-an-hour had elapsed and nothing seemed to be coming from the back, Kenny rushed to the front and shouted, 'Well, that's it. I am not going to write any more of that bloody rubbish with those idiots. They don't know music from their backsides. That's it! No more help from me!"
Bwahahahahahahahhahahaha !!!!!!!!
|
|
joekidd
|
11/6/2009 6:28:49 PM
for me , this question could be
beethoven or mozart?
i could live without mozart
i could not live without beethoven
lennon spoke to and from the core of what qualifies us as a higher species
he was absolutely artistically fearless
he explored & challenged everything that crossed his path
and he brought this powerful , shattering interpretation of
history , art , religion , politics ...
in otherwords , the universe
back to us in the form of 12 notes , 26 letters
and some psychochild line drawings
he gave his time , money , efforts
and eventually his life to the cause
of brotherhood & exposing the truth
i feel so incredibly fortunate
to have shared his time in this world
no amount of rewriting history can change it
|
|
Jeff Allen Myers
|
11/7/2009 3:36:38 AM
I get a kick out of the "rewriting history" bit.... No one is doing that. McCartney f'd up once by asking that the majority writer of each song get his name first. For example. "Yesterday" by McCartney/Lennon" There was an immediate backlash, he realized it was a stupid idea, backed down, and hasn't said shit since. He is not trying to rewrite history.
In fact, since Lennon died, his stature and legend has grown...as do all Icon's after their death. Lennon was an Icon, he did alot in the name of Peace, but frankly the man could be a world class asshole as well. He was a man. a man with a few issues that he worked through his entire life.
Now, before anyone bashes me, please know I revere the fricken dude as much as anybody. I thought I would say that in case someone reads this without know anything about me :)
I would say, since Lennon died the rewriting of history has been in Johns favor...when they are both gone we will miss them the same, and they will be revered equally....I have no doubt about that.
Regards,
Jeff
|
|
Fyvwunsyx
|
11/7/2009 4:50:24 AM
John's vocals - Paul's musicianship.
Beatle era songwriting - John.
Post Beatles - Paul.
|
|
Chris Hance
|
11/7/2009 5:36:35 AM
And don't say Ringo!
sure, there was never a Pope Ringo yet was there, but theres been Pope Paul, Pope John, and Pope John Paul....... Pope Paul II ?
|
|
| |
©2015-16 IndieMusicPeople.com All Rights
Reserved
| |