smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | <zoogang@cox.net> |
| Subject | Re: McCartney is God Get over it |
| Date | Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:36:27 -0400 |
[Part 1 text/plain utf-8 (9.4 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
As I said, I won't apologize for liking what I like. But I will say that I agree with you about some of today's artists you mentioned, like Difford and Tillbrook and Aimee Mann (but not Mould, whose work I have never cared for, or Tunstall, whose appeal I just don't get). Nevertheless, I'd be happy to argue our salient points over a hot dog any old time.
Alan
http://www.buhdge.com
http://www.purepopradio.com
---- "John L. Micek" <jlmicek@comcast.net> wrote:
> Sorry, man. I'm going to call you an "aging whiner."
> This may just peg me a snotty-assed GenXer, but I really can't stand it when
> Boomers start disappearing up their own backsides like this.
> But first, let me stipulate: Paul McCartney and John Lennon were two of the
> most skilled pop songsmiths of the rock era. They made some of the most
> enduring pop music of all time, and their songs will be remembered long
> after we're all pushing up daisies.
> There, with that out of the way, let me advance three radical notions:
>
> 1. Sgt. Pepper is an overrated piece of claptrap whose actual importance is
> far more exaggerated than its actual artistic worth.
> 2. Paul McCartney started to suck roughly around "The Pipes of Peace," and,
> with one or two exceptions (notably "Flowers in the Dirt") has largely been
> stuck in a state of artistic decline for the best part of two decades. And
> that's soiled his legacy.
> 3. The new single is horrendous and largely absent of a tune.
>
> So, I'll take my arguments in order:
>
> 1. There's nothing except rosy-eyed nostalgia firing the notion that "Sgt.
> Pepper," is an epoch-changing piece of pop music. Taken as a piece the two
> records that preceded Pepper were vastly superior. Pound-for-pound "Rubber
> Soul," was a stronger collection of songs, in terms of both structure and
> arrangement. "Revolver," which followed, was far more experimental and
> ground-breaking than anything on "Pepper." I'm thinking specifically here of
> "Tomorrow Never Knows," which was just such a break from anything out at the
> time.
> With its roots stuck squarely in British music hall tradition, Pepper has
> always struck me as an artistic regression, and it was a hint of the
> godawful, mawkish sentimentality that has weighed down McCartney's later
> work. For a record that was supposed to mark the start of the
> counterculture, it's remarkably conventional. "She's Leaving Home," for
> instance, sides with the parents, and not youthful rebellion.
> "Lovely Rita," is a paen to a meter-maid, and, by extension, the police, who
> were hardly tolerant of the vaunted 60s counterculture. And the less said
> about the horrific "When I'm 64" the better.
> For me, the highlights of Pepper remain "Mr. Kite," and "Day In The Life,"
> which are actually experimental, and the lone exceptions to a pretty
> conventional pop record. And the fact that the group abandoned the fake band
> conceit halfway through should tell you something about their enthusiasm for
> the project.
>
> 2. McCartney's first solo record, and maybe, "Band on the Run," remain the
> highlights of McCartney's post-Beatles offerings. For every "Pipes of
> Peace," or "Ebony and Ivory," there's an "Absolute Beginners," or, God
> Forbid, "Press to Play." And if I never hear that godawful song he wrote
> after the 9/11 attacks ever again, the world will be no poorer for it. Alan
> says he can bifurcate Macca's work as a Beatle from his solo offerings. But
> I'm not sure how you can be so compartmentalized about an artist. You always
> have to view their work as a whole. I'm a huge Hemingway fan, and adore his
> early short stories, and pretty much everything through "To Have and Have
> Not."
> But I cannot deny the fact that he was an unbearable asshole for the last
> years of his life, and did not write anything much reading after "For Whom
> the Bell Tolls." And there are whole sections of that book that make me want
> to retch. It doesn't diminish my affection for his earlier works, but I
> simply can't break his career in half like that. It has to, in my view, be
> taken as a whole.
>
> 3. I tried at least three times to listen to the new single last night.
> After hearing it praised so warmly here, I went into it with high
> expectations. But with the sort of dead opening it has, it just didn't grab
> me. And didn't on subsequent listens.
>
> Finally, the idea that songs aren't as well-done as they were in the 1960s
> is ludicrous. If anything, I'd argue, that the really good songwriters have
> gotten more clever and innovative as the years have gone on. For every
> Lennon/McCartney, I'll see you and raise you a Difford and Tilbrook, an
> Elvis Costello, Aimee Mann, Chris Penn, Josh Rouse, Paul Westerberg, Bob
> Mould, Berry/Buck/Mills/Stipe, or even a K.T. Tunstall.
>
> The point is, the 60s are what they were. But to freeze 'em in amber and
> hold 'em superior is kinda silly.
>
> But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
>
> john micek
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <zoogang@cox.net>
> To: <audities@smoe.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 10:25 AM
> Subject: Re: McCartney is God Get over it
>
>
> > There is a perception that those of us who grew up in the sixties "know
> > better" when it comes to music than folks who grew up in any succeeding
> > decade. I guess that's because us sixties cats think we grew up in a time
> > where songs were songs written by professional songwriters who knew how to
> > structure a tune.
> >
> > Well, I think there's a good measure of truth to this. And please don't
> > call me an aging whiner--I really believe that songs in general were
> > better written, arranged and performed in the sixties and into the
> > seventies (but not when it comes to disco).
> >
> > Whether this applies to Macca and other songwriters and performers who
> > came up in the sixties and are still in the game today is up for
> > discussion. I mean, I'm like the biggest Macca fan on the planet, and even
> > I don't like everything he does, and I'm not afraid to say it. But I don't
> > compare what he's doing now, or has done since the Beatles broke up, to
> > the songs he wrote and performed as a Fab. There is just no comparison.
> >
> > As far as pledging allegiance to Macca, well, I would suspect that he
> > deserves more than a bit of that, just for being one of the four geniuses
> > who set the standard for great pop music (yes, Ringo's a genius, too).
> > Blind allegiance--well, that's another thing entirely.
> >
> > And speaking of other things, there is a tendency for some people to come
> > out and tear apart new music by McCartney, sometimes even before they've
> > heard it. I'll listen first and reserve my judgment for after taking the
> > record for a couple of spins.
> >
> > The new song is great, an instant favorite. Whether the new album will
> > also be great is another thing. I hope it is.
> >
> > If I ever meet Macca, I just know the only things that will be going
> > through my head are: 1, Macca is God; 2, Hey, it's one of the Beatles; 3,
> > I'll never wash this hand, and 4, I'll never wash the other hand either,
> > just in case he touched it too. Oh, and 5, all of the above.
> >
> > Alan
> > http://www.buhdge.com
> > http://www.purepopradio.com
> > ---- "Sager wrote:
> >> Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 20:03:48 -0400
> >> From: mogleyb@aol.com
> >> To: audities@smoe.org
> >> Subject: McCartney is God Get over it
> >> Message-ID: <8C954E455AAA409-B18-7D28@FWM-R08.sysops.aol.com>
> >>
> >> Imo <<
> >>
> >>
> >> Since it was established in pop culture years ago that "Clapton is God",
> >> I guess that this makes us all polytheists.
> >>
> >> Seriously, the only thing I've gotten over where McCartney or his three
> >> '60s associates are concerned is the feeling that I'm somehow expected
> >> to give obeisance to the unblinking Beatles worship still widely
> >> practiced within pop culture -- and I say that as someone who has an
> >> abiding love of the Fab Four's music. Paul McCartney has thoroughly
> >> established over the past three decades that he has feet of clay as both
> >> a songwriter and a creative force in the studio, and I can't understand
> >> why anyone would still subscribe to the credo that Macca somehow
> >> operates on some other plane above everyone else as a recording artist.
> >>
> >> Perhaps it's a generational thing. I'm not a child of the '60s (I was a
> >> child *in* the '60s), so my allegiance to the era of the Beatles is
> >> neither hyperbolic nor suffused with the type of nostalgia that deadens
> >> the critical faculties. I consider myself lucky to be a child of a
> >> decade (the '70s) that didn't have an artist or group who was so
> >> overwhelming both in terms of cultural impact and musical regard that it
> >> made such imperative demands upon my loyalty. I don't think we're ever
> >> going to see many fortysomethings post messages to Audities entitled
> >> "Fleetwood Mac is God Get over it" or "Kiss is God Get over it".
> >>
> >> (I'm holding out hope that Bruce Brodeen sends us a post called "Foghat
> >> is God Get over It", though. ;-) )
> >>
> >> At this point I view Paul McCartney as a very good songwriter and
> >> recording artist ... but, given his highly-erratic success rate, I can
> >> think of numerous other people I rank above him in both of those
> >> categories.
> >>
> >> Sorry to dump a teaspoon of heresy into your morning coffee, but that's
> >> how I roll.
> >>
> >>
> >> Greg Sager
> >
> >
>
>
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.