smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "Sager, Greg" <greg.sager@bankofamerica.com> |
| Subject | Re: Paul McCartney |
| Date | Fri, 21 Jan 2005 01:52:47 -0600 |
[Part 1 text/plain (1.8 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:08:00 +0000
From: Bill <billm45s@verizon.net>
To: <audities@smoe.org>
Subject: Re: Paul McCartney
Message-ID:
<20050120210800.IGHJ1106.out003.verizon.net@outgoing.verizon.net>
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.
Pffft. Mike Bennett was right. Lefsetz's piece was tedious and poorly
written. A good editor would've red-penned about 70% of it, and ABOVE all
else would've MADE him STOP that IDIOTIC habit of CAPITALIZING words that
MADE me feel as though he was Mussolini RANTING at the CROWD from the
BALCONY.
There's nothing wrong with a speech in which the rational argument is
secondary to the emotive. But there's a difference between "emotive" and
"bludgeoning".
Gregory Sager
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.