ADVERTISEMENT

Ketch's 10 Thoughts From the Weekend (What can we expect from the freshmen DTs?)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Most reasonable folks easily argue one is not stretching when arguing McCartney. The stretch being made is the argument for Prince. As most reasonable folks would tell you in this debate.
It's really not. Prince was a perfect 10 in every single element of his craft.

I don't think you can say that about Paul.
 
Yes, that is the crossroads we're currently positioned at.

You tried to make an (unsubstantiated) data argument for Prince, I provided several data points in which McCartney is vastly ahead of Prince (700 million units sold to 100 million), and that's all you've got? That's a Baylor argument.
 
You tried to make an (unsubstantiated) data argument for Prince, I provided several data points in which McCartney is vastly ahead of Prince (700 million units sold to 100 million), and that's all you've got? That's a Baylor argument.

Yes, if the standard is units sold, Prince doesn't measure up.

Of course, that means that Taylor Swift is the greatest active living songwriter, right?

Let's approach it like this. I'll give Prince perfect 10 scores in every area of this discussion. You tell me where he's not a perfect 10.
 
It's really not. Prince was a perfect 10 in every single element of his craft.

I don't think you can say that about Paul.

The quickest way to stop digging a deeper hole is to put the shovel down.
 
I also love that CS thinks that because Paul could play a few instruments that he's a push with Prince in terms of pure musicality.

Hard to have an actual discussion when wowzers like this are coming at you.
 
I also love that CS thinks that because Paul could play a few instruments that he's a push with Prince in terms of pure musicality.

Hard to have an actual discussion when wowzers like this are coming at you.

Hard to have an acutal discussion with someone who thinks Sir Paul could play a "few instruments." Honestly, that might be the most stupid thing said in this entire discussion.
 
I also love that CS thinks that because Paul could play a few instruments that he's a push with Prince in terms of pure musicality.

Hard to have an actual discussion when wowzers like this are coming at you.

Again, please consult @Alex Dunlap to get an understanding of the esteem in which McCartney is held in the bass community. He's usually on the Mount Rushmore there. Prince isn't sniffing that on the guitar side. The position you're carving out is pretty incredible, really. You could go after almost anyone in the music world and have a solid argument, but you are trying to bow up against the absolute worst possible choice for your position.

What this thread is exposing is a real ignorance on your part for Paul McCartney's career. You fancy yourself a music guy, but you're off the reservation here.
 
Yes, if the standard is units sold, Prince doesn't measure up.

Of course, that means that Taylor Swift is the greatest active living songwriter, right?

Let's approach it like this. I'll give Prince perfect 10 scores in every area of this discussion. You tell me where he's not a perfect 10.

In the categories you came up with, only his performance is a 10. He's not a 10 anywhere else.
 
Hard to have an acutal discussion with someone who thinks Sir Paul could play a "few instruments." Honestly, that might be the most stupid thing said in this entire discussion.
I don't say a few to minimize how good Paul is. It's hard to have a conversation with someone that cannot concede Paul isn't No.1 in everything.
 
I don't say a few to minimize how good Paul is. It's hard to have a conversation with someone that cannot concede Paul isn't No.1 in everything.

I called it a push at best and stand by that. McCartney is a better bassist than Prince was a guitarist. Both were multi-instrumentalists. McCartney's work is better remembered than Prince's by a long shot.
 
I don't say a few to minimize how good Paul is. It's hard to have a conversation with someone that cannot concede Paul isn't No.1 in everything.

The argument was never about being #1 in every singe category. It was about as the whole. And yes, it's downright f'n foolish to think that over the categories you initially listed (not the monumentally foolish "sexual power" you included later), as a whole, that McCartney isn't superior. Alluding to what @CS said, I would imagine that @Alex Dunlap is shaking his head at your argument.
 
Silly argument....every generation throws a hero up the pop charts. The music of omes youth likely determines what we think is great rather than any objective criteria.
 
I called it a push at best and stand by that. McCartney is a better bassist than Prince was a guitarist. Both were multi-instrumentalists. McCartney's work is better remembered than Prince's by a long shot.
It's a push for you because there's no ability to concede an inch with you in the conversation of McCartney.

Let me guess, McCartney is a better performer as well.
 
The argument was never about being #1 in every singe category. It was about as the whole. And yes, it's downright f'n foolish to think that over the categories you initially listed (not the monumentally foolish "sexual power" you included later), as a whole, that McCartney isn't superior. Alluding to what @CS said, I would imagine that @Alex Dunlap is shaking his head at your argument.
Alex has out of this world respect for Prince's abilities.
 
Alex has out of this world respect for Prince's abilities.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. I don't think Colt was as good a QB as VY. It does not mean I think Colt sucked as a QB. See where I'm going?
 
It's a push for you because there's no ability to concede an inch with you in the conversation of McCartney.

Let me guess, McCartney is a better performer as well.

I've said no such thing. You, on the other hand, have said Prince is a perfect 10 in all categories. You're really confused on this subject.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DanielSucks
Status
Not open for further replies.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT