> Caio posted an article:
> He dabbled in Hinduism and adopted an air of profundity that never bore
> fruit in his work; his pseudo-spiritual song "My Sweet Lord," far from
> expressing depths of Eastern mysticism, was such an obvious rip-off of the
> old Motown hit "He's So Fine" that I wasn't surprised when he was
> successfully sued for copyright violation.
>
> Well, let's see.... I'm pretty sure that the Chiffons didn't record for
> Motown; they were in Phil Spector's stable. And missing an easy-to-check
> fact like that makes the rest of the article suspect.
But if he has been actually "sucessfully sued" for violation ( which is the main
issue here), it doesn't matter the recording label concerned. And I don't see
how that would make the article suspect: he's just saying that the Beatles were
not as good as Nat, which depends on personal preference, not on actual original
copyrights.
> I don't thing George Harrison ever claimed to be a fine singer, but he did
> create some amazing guitar licks. And I don't think saying so takes
> anything away from Nat Cole's reputation-- which certainly hasn't suffered
> in the intervening years. I was in the CD section of a Borders Book Store
> last night (spent $40 I didn't have on Rosemary Clooney and classic R&B),
> and there were at least as many Nat Cole recordings in stock as Beatles. If
> not more!
I think you've missed what was most important in that article: what makes a
celebrity and what that says about the audience ( that was the author's point.
My point in posting it was showing Ernie at least another person didn't care
much about the Beatles.Well... actually, I despise them thoroughly, but that's
not the point either! hehe )
Best regards,
Caio
|
