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" 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: > To: > 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 > > > > > >