DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => General Music Discussion => Topic started by: KevShmev on October 06, 2019, 09:37:16 AM
-
I fall in the middle of what always seem to be the two extremes.
A lot of Beatles fans talk him up like he was one of the greatest ever, which I find laughable.
And a lot of people laugh him off, like he was pure crap.
I think he is definitely one of the luckiest people ever, landing in a band with two of the greatest songwriters ever (Lennon and McCartney), and I think he was a solid drummer who did some cool things at the time that you had never really heard in popular music prior, but that is about where it ends for me.
-
I am not good at assessing musicians since my knowledge of music doesn't extend beyond "yeah, this sounds cool to me!" but I think your summary is fair and reasonable.
I don't like to consider musicians "lucky." Luck has so much to do with everyone's life. I was lucky that I knew a guy who needed and extra hand with his company and he was willing to hire me. But I still have to go in every single day and do the work. Musicians are no different. Sure Ringo is luckier than most musicians. But he still had to go in and do the work. I dunno... it's a me issue.
-
"yeah, this sounds cool to me!"
And at the end of the day, that's all that matters. If you don't touch the peoples' heart or soul or whatever it doesn't matter if you're "good".
-
I am not good at assessing musicians since my knowledge of music doesn't extend beyond "yeah, this sounds cool to me!" but I think your summary is fair and reasonable.
I don't like to consider musicians "lucky." Luck has so much to do with everyone's life. I was lucky that I knew a guy who needed and extra hand with his company and he was willing to hire me. But I still have to go in every single day and do the work. Musicians are no different. Sure Ringo is luckier than most musicians. But he still had to go in and do the work. I dunno... it's a me issue.
I can see your reasoning. Yes, it might have been lucky to end up in a band with Lennon and McCartney, but he had to be picked in the first place, and if was, say, an unreasonable asshole, he would have been booted. Maybe luck landed him the gig, but I don't think luck made him stay.
-
I fall in the middle of what always seem to be the two extremes.
A lot of Beatles fans talk him up like he was one of the greatest ever, which I find laughable.
And a lot of people laugh him off, like he was pure crap.
I think he is definitely one of the luckiest people ever, landing in a band with two of the greatest songwriters ever (Lennon and McCartney), and I think he was a solid drummer who did some cool things at the time that you had never really heard in popular music prior, but that is about where it ends for me.
Was he a lucky guy being in The Beatles? Probably. I don't think he has any technique, but him coming up with the groove ideas in Come Together was apparently something everyone loves. I don't. Had it been superhumanly tight, I'd appreciate it. As it is, I can't. He isn't one of my heroes nor did he influence me in any way. That's all I'll say.
-
To me, he was good enough. I mean, he was no Ginger Baker, but Ginger Baker would've changed the Beatles dynamic. I mean, people try and to make sense of Ringo as a drummer, which is futile to me. He's no Neal Peart, but then again, George Harrison is no Yngwie Malmsteen.
-
Ringo to me is a drummer that came up with interesting and linear drumpattern that was kind of unheard of at the time. Pretty simple stuff but he served the songs very well which I appreciate alot.
Todd Sucherman on Ringo Starr: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yr8BE1M7qPc
-
Nothing flashy about Ringo but he does have the ability to put the right fill or the right swing to the song.
He's always been a drummer that plays to what fits for the song.
-
Ringo to me is a drummer that came up with interesting and linear drumpattern that was kind of unheard of at the time. Pretty simple stuff but he served the songs very well which I appreciate alot.
Todd Sucherman on Ringo Starr: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yr8BE1M7qPc
I respect Ringo's ideas, yes, it would be rude not to. (as Todd rightfully says)
-
I like the part at 1:05 where he says "What TAC said.". ;D
-
Damn, that Hollywood Bowl album sounds interesting. I'll check that out.
-
Damn, that Hollywood Bowl album sounds interesting. I'll check that out.
it's on YT. (There you go: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_lyUDU9ALLrVNcpbmbNclXnUvH7GJpBclc) Screaming women? Tick. Vocal harmonies? Tick. Flaws and all? Tick.
-
Damn, that Hollywood Bowl album sounds interesting. I'll check that out.
it's on YT. (There you go: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_lyUDU9ALLrVNcpbmbNclXnUvH7GJpBclc) Screaming women? Tick. Vocal harmonies? Tick. Flaws and all? Tick.
Listening on Spotify right now, actually. I like it.
-
Ringo was great at crafting what he was going to play in each song. You can hear he is trying not to repeat himself and his patterns are always interesting to listen to. In my life is my favorite example.
If he weren't good, I'm sure John, Paul and George wouldn't keep him. He was chosen over Pete Best because he was better.
-
Ringo was great at crafting what he was going to play in each song. You can hear he is trying not to repeat himself and his patterns are always interesting to listen to. In my life is my favorite example.
If he weren't good, I'm sure John, Paul and George wouldn't keep him. He was chosen over Pete Best because he was better.
that is true I think
-
Ringo to me is a drummer that came up with interesting and linear drumpattern that was kind of unheard of at the time. Pretty simple stuff but he served the songs very well which I appreciate alot.
Todd Sucherman on Ringo Starr: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yr8BE1M7qPc
piggybacking off of this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oQsKRyihEA
-
I think he was crucial to the Beatles. He's not on my Mt. Rushmore of greatest drummers (Bonham, Peart, Portnoy, Collins) but he's perhaps the greatest drummer for the Beatles. It was pointless to be Ginger Baker in the Beatles, that's not the kind of band they were. They weren't improvisers, they weren't jammers, they weren't about the sort of "music as a journey in and of itself" like Crimson, or the Dead, or Cream. Sort of coincidentally, Eric Clapton himself recognized that later when Harrison invited him along to help smooth tensions between the other members.
I think Paul McCartney is the single greatest living musician on the planet right now, and he was part of the collective that actively chose Ringo Starr to further his and John's vision. I'm also a big fan of the idea of "chemistry" in a band, and I think when you have a two-headed monster like Lennon/McCartney, you NEEDED a guy like Ringo, a "shut up and play" kind of guy, to make the team work.
-
I think he was crucial to the Beatles. He's not on my Mt. Rushmore of greatest drummers (Bonham, Peart, Portnoy, Collins) but he's perhaps the greatest drummer for the Beatles. It was pointless to be Ginger Baker in the Beatles, that's not the kind of band they were. They weren't improvisers, they weren't jammers, they weren't about the sort of "music as a journey in and of itself" like Crimson, or the Dead, or Cream. Sort of coincidentally, Eric Clapton himself recognized that later when Harrison invited him along to help smooth tensions between the other members.
I think Paul McCartney is the single greatest living musician on the planet right now, and he was part of the collective that actively chose Ringo Starr to further his and John's vision. I'm also a big fan of the idea of "chemistry" in a band, and I think when you have a two-headed monster like Lennon/McCartney, you NEEDED a guy like Ringo, a "shut up and play" kind of guy, to make the team work.
nice to see Phil Collins recieve some respect there (which he deserves IMHO), apart from that, I can (somewhat) relate to some things you mentioned (meaning that Macca and Lennon didn't need or want a technical player to "complete the team" as it were and some other things)
-
He's a decent drummer, but remember, he wasn't even the best drummer in the Beatles.
-
He's a decent drummer, but remember, he wasn't even the best drummer in the Beatles.
He didn't need to be the best drummer. He needed to the right drummer that suits the vision and the songs for the band. There's a difference.
-
He's a decent drummer, but remember, he wasn't even the best drummer in the Beatles.
Eh, I get what you're alluding to, but for me, a big Beatles fan, I (believe I) can tell those songs when Paul plays, and that's not always a good thing. You listen to a song like "Rain" and it's what it is because of Ringo, more than anything else.
-
I am not insulting Ringo in the slightest.
-
I fall in the middle of what always seem to be the two extremes.
A lot of Beatles fans talk him up like he was one of the greatest ever, which I find laughable.
And a lot of people laugh him off, like he was pure crap.
I think he is definitely one of the luckiest people ever, landing in a band with two of the greatest songwriters ever (Lennon and McCartney), and I think he was a solid drummer who did some cool things at the time that you had never really heard in popular music prior, but that is about where it ends for me.
I think you've summed up exactly how I feel about him.
I think it's worth adding that he gets credit for a lot of playing he didn't actually do (something which I suspect has already been pointed out, but I haven't read through the thread yet). I don't know the extent of it (although I'm sure there is exhaustive information available), but I know McCartney played drums on a bunch of tracks in the last few years of the Beatles' career.
-
I fall in the middle of what always seem to be the two extremes.
A lot of Beatles fans talk him up like he was one of the greatest ever, which I find laughable.
And a lot of people laugh him off, like he was pure crap.
I think he is definitely one of the luckiest people ever, landing in a band with two of the greatest songwriters ever (Lennon and McCartney), and I think he was a solid drummer who did some cool things at the time that you had never really heard in popular music prior, but that is about where it ends for me.
I think you've summed up exactly how I feel about him.
I think it's worth adding that he gets credit for a lot of playing he didn't actually do (something which I suspect has already been pointed out, but I haven't read through the thread yet). I don't know the extent of it (although I'm sure there is exhaustive information available), but I know McCartney played drums on a bunch of tracks in the last few years of the Beatles' career.
There's also the rumour that Bernard Purdie overdubbed drums for The Beatles, according to himself but I don't know the full extent of that.
https://www.quora.com/Did-Bernard-Purdie-play-for-the-Beatles
-
I fall in the middle of what always seem to be the two extremes.
A lot of Beatles fans talk him up like he was one of the greatest ever, which I find laughable.
And a lot of people laugh him off, like he was pure crap.
I think he is definitely one of the luckiest people ever, landing in a band with two of the greatest songwriters ever (Lennon and McCartney), and I think he was a solid drummer who did some cool things at the time that you had never really heard in popular music prior, but that is about where it ends for me.
I think you've summed up exactly how I feel about him.
I think it's worth adding that he gets credit for a lot of playing he didn't actually do (something which I suspect has already been pointed out, but I haven't read through the thread yet). I don't know the extent of it (although I'm sure there is exhaustive information available), but I know McCartney played drums on a bunch of tracks in the last few years of the Beatles' career.
There's also the rumour that Bernard Purdie overdubbed drums for The Beatles, according to himself but I don't know the full extent of that.
https://www.quora.com/Did-Bernard-Purdie-play-for-the-Beatles
Clarence Walker, anyone?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CDMtb3kVAAEG7YS?format=jpg&name=360x360)
-
Clarence Walker, anyone?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CDMtb3kVAAEG7YS?format=jpg&name=360x360)
:rollin
Didn't they hide the plot with backward masking?
-
Clarence Walker, anyone?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CDMtb3kVAAEG7YS?format=jpg&name=360x360)
:rollin
Didn't they hide the plot with backward masking?
Exactly!
https://snltranscripts.jt.org/83/83lrocknroll.phtml
-
Here's the clip!
https://vimeo.com/8904532
-
I fall in the middle of what always seem to be the two extremes.
A lot of Beatles fans talk him up like he was one of the greatest ever, which I find laughable.
And a lot of people laugh him off, like he was pure crap.
I think he is definitely one of the luckiest people ever, landing in a band with two of the greatest songwriters ever (Lennon and McCartney), and I think he was a solid drummer who did some cool things at the time that you had never really heard in popular music prior, but that is about where it ends for me.
I think you've summed up exactly how I feel about him.
I think it's worth adding that he gets credit for a lot of playing he didn't actually do (something which I suspect has already been pointed out, but I haven't read through the thread yet). I don't know the extent of it (although I'm sure there is exhaustive information available), but I know McCartney played drums on a bunch of tracks in the last few years of the Beatles' career.
That was true of all of them to some extent. Lennon played a shit ton of bass (while Macca was on the piano) as well as a lot of lead guitar. I think you'll find that's true of many bands, at the end of the day.
-
Macca was on the piano
Eh?
-
Macca was on the piano
Eh?
There are several songs where Paul McCartney played piano, on some of those - "The Long And Winding Road", most notably - Lennon played bass. "Macca" is short for McCartney, sort of like "Mac" here in the States.
-
There are several songs where Paul McCartney played piano, on some of those - "The Long And Winding Road", most notably - Lennon played bass. "Macca" is short for McCartney, sort of like "Mac" here in the States.
-
Is that short for Stadler? I hope that doesn't stick.... ;)
-
I was waiting to see how long that took for someone to catch. :lol
-
There are several songs where Paul McCartney played piano, on some of those - "The Long And Winding Road", most notably - Lennon played bass. "Macca" is short for McCartney, sort of like "Mac" here in the States.
That was the question. I know McCartney played pretty much every instrument at one point or another during the Beatles' career (and, on a couple of songs, all of them), but I've never heard him referred to as "Macca."
-
There are several songs where Paul McCartney played piano, on some of those - "The Long And Winding Road", most notably - Lennon played bass. "Macca" is short for McCartney, sort of like "Mac" here in the States.
That was the question. I know McCartney played pretty much every instrument at one point or another during the Beatles' career (and, on a couple of songs, all of them), but I've never heard him referred to as "Macca."
I think it's a English thing, specifically a Liverpool thing. There's a quote from McCartney that answers this floating around somewhere; he refers to "Harrie" (for Harrison, something I've never heard even once) and "Lennie" for John (something I have heard but is not nearly as common as "Macca").
-
I see him referred to as Macca quite often. Weird.
But yeah, Paul and John were always playing around with different instruments and whatnot. It's funny to reach the song by song breakdown of the White Album where you realize how many songs on that album didn't feature all four Beatles and how many were sometimes just one or two of the lads.
-
I mean Blackbird was just created by McCartney himself mainly with an acoustic guitar. Great short and sweet song.
-
I see him referred to as Macca quite often. Weird.
But yeah, Paul and John were always playing around with different instruments and whatnot. It's funny to reach the song by song breakdown of the White Album where you realize how many songs on that album didn't feature all four Beatles and how many were sometimes just one or two of the lads.
I re-watched my quasi-not-really-official copy of the "Let It Be" this past week, and the live version of "Get Back" is almost revelatory, in that it shows how much Lennon played and contributed to that song. That rhythm part, with the signature lick in the chorus and the little "strum" at the end of the figure, is excellent and in my view makes the song.
-
Interesting segue... how good were the other three at their respective instruments?
-
Interesting segue... how good were the other three at their respective instruments?
McCartney is one of the best bass players that ever lived in my view, and he plays and sings wonderfully. Ringo is Ringo. Solid, unobtrusive, kind of like a referee in sports: if you notice them that's not a good thing. George... bear in mind I'm not the HUGEST George Harrison fan, but he looks lost. Strumming rhythm guitar, and basically standing there looking at the other two as if he's struggling to follow along. It's interesting, if you've ever seen the footage: Paul, Ringo, and John are set up like a band on stage. John and Paul are side by side, in front of Ringo and George is off to the side (on the right) facing the other three. It's like he's sitting in with another band.
(By the way, Billy Preston is there as well, set up behind Paul and stage right of Ringo.)
I tried to find footage on YooToob, but the only version I could find (framed with an old "television set") was NOT the footage from the copy of the movie I have and was, at times, badly out of synch. Ity's fascinating to watch John play (especially after just seeing his son Sean with the "Claypool/Lennon Delirium") and for all the beef between the two, watching John and Paul look at each other with what can only be described as love.
-
Interesting segue... how good were the other three at their respective instruments?
If you are just talking about, on a technical level, they were all OK to pretty good, with McCartney definitely being on the highest level of any of the 4.
-
I took that in a different way; if you mean overall, and not just in that performance, then...
McCartney is in my view the greatest living pop/rock musician today. I think his bass playing is transcendent, he could sing anything, and he's one of the greatest songwriters to ever live.
Lennon is an above average guitar player, who put the song and the idea first for most of his career. But he's one of those guys, in a Jerry Garcia way, that I believe could do just about anything he wanted on guitar, it was just more a question of "what he wanted".
Harrison is, in my view, over-rated. If we've considered Ringo to be "lucky" to have been in the Beatles, I consider Harrison even luckier. He is an okay guitarist (on some of the early and mid-period stuff, you can actually hear him at the limits of struggling with some figures). Yeah, he wrote a couple good tunes, and I think he had the most lack-luster of the subsequent solo careers. McCartney was ALL about the music. Lennon was ALL about the bigger picture; the ideas, the context, the statement. I think Starr was more in line with Lennon (albeit in a very very different way) and lived up to that in his own way (thus the "All-Star Band" thing that has been so successful). I think Harrison was more in line with McCartney, but didn't live up to that in a way that I would have expected a former Beatle to have.
-
You have a more elevated opinion of McCartney than I do, but otherwise I largely agree with you.
Slightly unrelated, have you seen the film Yesterday?
-
Slightly unrelated, have you seen the film Yesterday?
(https://i.imgflip.com/3ctqqd.jpg)
-
Reading through this thread, a lot of what's been said, particularly by Stada, could apply just as much to Nick Mason. In fact there's a real similarity to the bands' dynamics, with the only real outlier being Wright (by virtue of him being world class at his instrument).
-
He's a decent drummer, but remember, he wasn't even the best drummer in the Beatles.
There's a quote that's attributed to the bass player from U2. I'm not a U2 fan nor am I a Beatles fan but I think it's a good quote. It goes something like, "I may not be the best bass player in the world. I'm not even the best bass player in the band. But I am the bass player".
-
I'm with hef on this one. McCartney was the best instrumentalist of the four, but not really notable at all. The greatness of the Beatles was in the songwriting, their innovation, and those voices, not in their playing.
-
I'm with hef on this one. McCartney was the best instrumentalist of the four, but not really notable at all. The greatness of the Beatles was in the songwriting, their innovation, and those voices, not in their playing.
Everything I've said is certainly debatable, and I only put it out there as my opinion. Except McCartney as a bass player. I think that one goes beyond "just Stads rambling on". There are too many others - including those who have dedicated their own lives to the instrument - that say the same thing.
-
I'm with hef on this one. McCartney was the best instrumentalist of the four, but not really notable at all. The greatness of the Beatles was in the songwriting, their innovation, and those voices, not in their playing.
Everything I've said is certainly debatable, and I only put it out there as my opinion. Except McCartney as a bass player. I think that one goes beyond "just Stads rambling on". There are too many others - including those who have dedicated their own lives to the instrument - that say the same thing.
While that is true, how much of that is Beatles fans stroking a Beatle because, ya know, it's the Beatles? I have seen tons of musicians over the years talk up Ringo Starr as this great drummer as well, so you have to take that with a grain of salt. Don't get me wrong, I think McCartney is a good melodic bass player - songs like With a Little Help from My Friends, Penny Lane, Tomorrow Never Knows and Come Together do a good job at showing his ability to play a memorable bass line rather than just following along with the drum track - but I think it ends there.
-
I'm with hef on this one. McCartney was the best instrumentalist of the four, but not really notable at all. The greatness of the Beatles was in the songwriting, their innovation, and those voices, not in their playing.
Everything I've said is certainly debatable, and I only put it out there as my opinion. Except McCartney as a bass player. I think that one goes beyond "just Stads rambling on". There are too many others - including those who have dedicated their own lives to the instrument - that say the same thing.
While that is true, how much of that is Beatles fans stroking a Beatle because, ya know, it's the Beatles? I have seen tons of musicians over the years talk up Ringo Starr as this great drummer as well, so you have to take that with a grain of salt. Don't get me wrong, I think McCartney is a good melodic bass player - songs like With a Little Help from My Friends, Penny Lane, Tomorrow Never Knows and Come Together do a good job at showing his ability to play a memorable bass line rather than just following along with the drum track - but I think it ends there.
Obviously, I can't answer that first question. Not an unfair question, but unanswerable. I can only say, though, that they have a sizable collection of songs where the bass is the "lead instrument"; not "solos" per se, but that carry the melody line of the song. "Paperback Writer". Its b-side, "Rain". "She's A Woman". Not his song, but "Everybody's Got Something To Hide...", the songs you mentioned, "Come Together", and "Tomorrow Never Knows" (literally one chord - a C-chord - the entire song). And that approach - novel at the time - influenced every one from Chris Squire to Mike Rutherford to Tom Hamilton (who covered "Come Together", and who swiped it for "Sweet Emotion") to Noel Gallagher (I know he's not a bass player, but listen to "Who Feels Love?") to Gene Simmons (whose style - and he has a style, let's be fair here - is almost entirely "Paul McCartney").
-
... I think McCartney is a good melodic bass player ...
I think that is the bottom line, he's not the groove monster and he's not the technical superstar but he has come up with some great melodic bass lines. For a solid bass player it's not hard to play those bass lines but it's a lot more difficult to come up with them. And that's where he shines and that's why people praise him imo.
And yes, he was in the Beatles so he must be the greatest.
-
Obviously, I can't answer that first question. Not an unfair question, but unanswerable. I can only say, though, that they have a sizable collection of songs where the bass is the "lead instrument"; not "solos" per se, but that carry the melody line of the song. "Paperback Writer". Its b-side, "Rain". "She's A Woman". Not his song, but "Everybody's Got Something To Hide...", the songs you mentioned, "Come Together", and "Tomorrow Never Knows" (literally one chord - a C-chord - the entire song). And that approach - novel at the time - influenced every one from Chris Squire to Mike Rutherford to Tom Hamilton (who covered "Come Together", and who swiped it for "Sweet Emotion") to Noel Gallagher (I know he's not a bass player, but listen to "Who Feels Love?") to Gene Simmons (whose style - and he has a style, let's be fair here - is almost entirely "Paul McCartney").
To play devil's advocate, I think it is entirely possible that many of those guys were influenced by the Beatles' songs and innovation rather than their playing, and since they were playing songs by a band they loved, the style of the playing naturally became a part of their playing style as they got better and became professional musicians. I am sure there are many drummers who would cite Charlie Watts as an influence simply because they loved the Rolling Stones and played their songs a ton growing up. Plus, I am not always convinced the influential = great, just like I think you can be great without necessarily being very influential, but not sure that is a rabbit hole I want to go down... ;) :lol
-
Yeah. McCartney is no elite bass player. He's a great songwriter and, above all, MELODY writer, and that certainly comes through in his playing.
But he's not a great bass player in the vein of Squire, Jamerson, Clarke, Pastorius, Claypool, or Wooten. That's just not him. But having said that, his playing probably influenced more people to pick up the bass or start a band than ANY of those guys.
-
Well I agree with Kev's point that "influential doesn't necessarily mean great", but I think it depends on what you value in a bass player. I've been blessed, in that I've seen some of the greatest bass players in the rock world, at least if you believe the cognicenti. I've seen Squire, Lee, Harris, Claypool... I think there are multiple ways of saying "great". Claypool isn't "great" in the same way that Squire is, for example. Maybe we can separate into "writing" versus "playing", but isn't that the case with all those guys? Is Squire legendary (probably my FAVORITE bass player) because his chops were unreplicable, or because he came up with cool bass parts to contrast Howe and Anderson and whoever? Is Lee awesome because he's doing something technically improbable, or because he works well with Lifeson and Peart?
-
Fair points. I always say, chops mean nothing if you can't write something interesting, and I will definitely take a guy who limited chops who writes something interesting over the chops/not interesting guy.
-
I'm with hef on this one. McCartney was the best instrumentalist of the four, but not really notable at all. The greatness of the Beatles was in the songwriting, their innovation, and those voices, not in their playing.
Everything I've said is certainly debatable, and I only put it out there as my opinion. Except McCartney as a bass player. I think that one goes beyond "just Stads rambling on". There are too many others - including those who have dedicated their own lives to the instrument - that say the same thing.
Stadler, are you justifying something with "conventional wisdom"? :P
-
I mean McCartney is a fine musician and songwriter but 'greatest living musician' is such hyperbolic praise of him imo that I can only shrug with some bemusement at the claim. Like, he's good, he's fine... but that's about it
-
I'm with hef on this one. McCartney was the best instrumentalist of the four, but not really notable at all. The greatness of the Beatles was in the songwriting, their innovation, and those voices, not in their playing.
Everything I've said is certainly debatable, and I only put it out there as my opinion. Except McCartney as a bass player. I think that one goes beyond "just Stads rambling on". There are too many others - including those who have dedicated their own lives to the instrument - that say the same thing.
Stadler, are you justifying something with "conventional wisdom"? :P
What? Who? Me? Huh? What?
:) :) :)
-
I had an Alesis drum machine years ago that I named "Ringo". It got the job done, but didn't count on any odd and elaborate time signatures. :lol
-
I had an Alesis drum machine years ago that I named "Ringo". It got the job done, but didn't count on any odd and elaborate time signatures. :lol
:lol