smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | Mike <paris2000@comcast.net> |
| Subject | Re: Paul McCartney |
| Date | Thu, 20 Jan 2005 13:36:50 -0800 |
[Part 1 text/plain US-ASCII (1.6 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
On Thursday, January 20, 2005, at 01:08 PM, Bill wrote:
>
>>
>> From: Michael Bennett <mrhonorama@ameritech.net>
>> Date: 2005/01/20 Thu PM 04:20:58 GMT
>> To: audities@smoe.org
>> Subject: Re: Paul McCartney
>>
>> This piece might be more meaningful if Mr. Lefsetz
>> knew how to write. This could be edited down to about
>> a paragraph or two, and make the same points much more
>> effectively.
>>
>
> Michael, as one attorney to another (who are cursed to read a certain
> type of writing), you are of course correct - it could have been
> edited to a couple of simple bullet points. But, that wasn't the
> whole point. Such editing might make the rational arguement easier
> to digest. However, the rational arguement is secondary to the
> emotive and I think he makes that arguement quite well, as he trys to
> portray the emotional reaction within a context of the time. Sure it
> is scattered and never quite direct, but as someone who was around at
> the time, it had the ring of truth and I was glad Bob posted it.
>
> "Band on the Run" was the post Beatles statement. And at the time you
> said damn McCartney really did it, which was a suprise because Lefsetz
> was right, his prior solo albums were "slight". The sad part is that
> "Band on the Run" proved he could do it, but overall despite all the
> subsequent great tracks and even enjoyable albums, he went backwards
> towards "slight". Lefsetz's writing, to me, captured that sense
> better than the straight rational arguement.
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
What he said!
- Mike
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.