Shock! Rolling Stone heaps praise on Paul
jen
McCartney Finishes First in NYC
Lengthy set by Sir Paul spotlights forty years of song
Hello, goodbye
It's insane, really, that some folks slag Paul McCartney for doing
nothing but being himself: a nice guy. Here's a man, arguably the
greatest tunesmith of his generation, who routinely takes broadsides
in the court of public opinion merely because we prefer our musical
geniuses either tortured or dead. Preferably both.
How such talk must rankle him. How tired he must be of turning the
other cheek. And yet, there he is -- the perpetually optimistic icon,
attending baseball games, hosting benefit concerts, going about the
business of being Sir Paul, true musical royalty -- and never giving
the impression that he is weighted down by the burden of being
condemned as "the cute one." Perhaps it's the billion-dollar empire
he's built, or maybe it's the fact that, at a time when his
contemporaries are recasting their songs and stage shows to reflect
added girth and lessened range, he's still playing his songs the way
they were written. His modesty prevents him from giving much away.
If another musician had released '99's vastly underrated Flaming Pie,
would it have been received in a better light? Would it have won the
Grammy award that it deserved? Likely. But Paul isn't entirely
blameless, as he deflates the songwriting mystique by saying that he
wrote this song in fifteen minutes while waiting for a plumber and
that one while in an airport waiting lounge. The rest of the reason is
. . . well, nice guys do sometimes finish last.
On the other hand, Paul McCartney is the only guy in the world who can
get away with dedicating songs to both his late wife and his fiancé.
Yeah, he's always had moments of unendurable sweetness on his records,
but his tours have told a vastly different story. Filled with drama
and bombast, dramatic in their tone and content, they are events where
songs like "Here, There and Everywhere" and "Blackbird" are
counterbalanced by "Live and Let Die" and those early Carl
Perkins-inspired numbers.
Which is why it's no surprise that his April 27th concert at Madison
Square Garden in New York City found a clearly re-invigorated
McCartney providing an exquisitely paced two-and-three-quarter hour
show that highlighted all facets of his musicianship and all five
decades of his recording career.
Early Fab Four hits ("I Saw Her Standing There," "All My Loving,"
"Can't Buy Me Love") got the middle-aged crowd dancing, but it was the
later Beatles numbers ("Eleanor Rigby," "Fool on the Hill," "Sgt.
Pepper's Reprise/The End," "The Long & Winding Road," "Let it Be" and
"Hey Jude") that left them breathless. Interspersed, as if to remind
the crowd that he'd been a part of two top-selling groups, were some
Wings tracks ("Band on the Run," "Jet") as well as some solo material
("Maybe I'm Amazed" plus cuts from his latest release, Driving Rain,
most notably the title track).
Highlights -- and there were many -- included a rave-up version of
"Back in the USSR" and a rollicking "Lady Madonna," which really
showcased his gem of a backing band. Indeed, drummer Abe Laboriel Jr.,
guitarists Brian Ray and Rusty Anderson and keyboardist Paul "Wix"
Wickens created McCartney's most formidable backing lineup since the
original Wings combo. Muscular one moment, delicate the next, the band
traded harmonies and performed every song-many on which they probably
cut their musical teeth-to perfection.
Complaints? Few and nitpicky. He could have trimmed a couple of songs;
sentiment aside, "My Love" was unremarkable, "C Moon" drifted
purposelessly and, although the band really laid it down, "Maybe I'm
Amazed" just doesn't flatter his range anymore. And if killing that
Cirque du Soliel-esque show opener would lower the ticket prices
($250, $125 and so on), he should do so immediately. The light show
and video screens were enough. Hell, he was enough, especially during
a solo mini-set featuring tributes to John Lennon ("Here Today") and
George Harrison ("Something," on a ukelele given to him by Harrison
himself).
It began with "Hello, Goodbye" and ended with "Sgt. Pepper's
Reprise/The End," and in between, Paul McCartney gave the crowd what
it came for: some great memories and a really nice night out.
Just don't hold it against him, okay?
TONY GERVINO
dlarsson
>
> It's insane, really, that some folks slag Paul McCartney for doing
> nothing but being himself: a nice guy.
Being "nice" was never the issue.
1) Writing "lightweight" songs was why he has always drawn criticism.
2) McCartney has also demonstrated that he is not even all that "nice"
by endless attempts to fabricate history (and trample on John's)
with his "I did it all" Beatles fiction after John's murder.
That's real nice?
> Here's a man, arguably the
> greatest tunesmith of his generation,
Argument accepted.
Even Albert Goldman acknowledged John Lennon
as the greatest songwriter of the 20th century.
When you consider the impact, influence, and substance
of John's music (the intangibles) not just commercial
or entertainment considerations .. it really is no contest here.
> who routinely takes broadsides
> in the court of public opinion merely because we prefer our musical
> geniuses either tortured or dead. Preferably both.
No, that's not it.
We prefer our "musical geniuses" to write more
impressive songs than "Hello Goodbye"
(a song more consistent with a "Brady Bunch" special
than the stuff of any so-called "genius").
> How tired he must be of turning the
> other cheek. And yet, there he is -- the perpetually optimistic icon,
> attending baseball games, hosting benefit concerts, going about the
> business of being Sir Paul, true musical royalty -- and never giving
> the impression that he is weighted down by the burden of being
> condemned as "the cute one."
Oh yeah .. Paul's the one who is "the victimized one"...
Let's see:
Lennon was weighted down by the U.S. Government's Watergate-style
abuse against him.
Lennon was weighted down hateful and racist attitudes towards his wife.
Lennon was burdened by being shot 5 times until blood ran out of his
body to the point of death.
Lennon was condemned by Albert Goldman's character assassination book.
Lennon was condemned by having his personal possessions stolen (diaries).
Lennon is condemned by McCartney trying to go around and
diminish his (obvious) leadership & creative role in the Beatles.
Harrison was condemned by getting stabbed by a stalker.
Harrison was weighted down by brain cancer to the point of ending his life.
Being called "cute" is hardly being "condemned" or "burderned".
It does not even qualifiy as a mere inconvenience.
The fact that McCartney postures as "the victimized one"
in light of the very real and horrible human tradegy and
injustice suffered by Lennon and Harrison says much about
his shallow and self-centered character.
> His modesty prevents him from giving much away.
What modesty?
Is charging $200 for a ticket .. modest?
(don't tell me he needs the money)
This isn't what a modest musician does.
This is what a showBiz-whore does.
And how is "going about the business of being Sir Paul, true musical royalty"
an illustration of modesty? What pomposity!
I can hear Lennon howl with laughter at the idea
of being "Knighted" and having his PR address him as "Sir".
Besides, like a phony used-car salesman, the man tries endlessly
to pervert Beatles history around to take the credit for all of
its accomplishments (as his own doing).
Vanity and sleaziness ... yes.
No modesty whatsoever.
> It began with "Hello, Goodbye" and ended with "Sgt. Pepper's
> Reprise/The End," and in between, Paul McCartney gave the crowd what
> it came for: some great memories and a really nice night out.
Imagine a concert beginning with "Strawberry Fields Forever"
and ending with "A Day In The Life" or "I Want You/She's So Heavy".
Of course, if Lennon were alive he would be not be trying to
live off of past triumphs. When "you've got it" .. being
an endless showBiz hustler and image-makeover-fabricator
isn't necessary.
- Derek
Rich Diakun
bring out the people who want to keep the Lennon vs. McCartney fight going.
Give it a rest. One is dead, the other isnt... you can't compare the
legacies of an instant saint who no longer has faults against someone who is
still alive and able to be human.
- Rich
"dlarsson" <derek_...@3com.com> wrote in message
news:cd359b2d.02051...@posting.google.com...
Mark T.
>
> Imagine a concert beginning with "Strawberry Fields Forever"
> and ending with "A Day In The Life" or "I Want You/She's So Heavy".
> Of course, if Lennon were alive he would be not be trying to
> live off of past triumphs. When "you've got it" .. being
> an endless showBiz hustler and image-makeover-fabricator
> isn't necessary.
>
> - Derek
This is simply your opinion!! If Lennon were alive today he'd be
mellowed out and playing his old songs. Why do these Lennon people
believe the man is so infallible???? I'll take Macca anyday.
Bob Gill
"These Lennon people" is a huge overstatement. You're talking about one
message composed during recess at a lunatic asylum. Don't assume every
devoted fan of John Lennon is this far removed from reality, because it's
not true.
-- Bob G.
rpepp
few years. Flaming Pie, Run Devil Run and Driving Rain
received 3-4 stars with positive comments.But they
don't suck up to him like they do Yoko......
Rick
"jen" <jen_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:cd420a40.02051...@posting.google.com...
Mister Charlie
"Rich Diakun" <URDE...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:k2YE8.6461$lT2.18...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
Derek and then bitch-slap him??!!
Rich Forman
> >
> > to pervert Beatles history around to take the credit for all of
> > its accomplishments (as his own doing).
I always seem to see Paul talking about the quality of the Beatles as
a band, and the importance and excellence of everybody's
contributions, and the collaborative nature of his songwriting
partnership with John. I'd like to see one sentence anywhere that
can be reasonably interpreted as paul "(trying) to take the credit for
all of its accomplishments (as his own doing)." Just one example of
that.
At worst, it seems he never says he did it all, but just insists that
he did SOME of it....seems like a silly thing to have to insist on
(admittedly, you would think everybody knows this and he needn't point
it out) until you read comments like the ones YOU'RE constantly
making, trivializing, diminishing, denying, belittling his
contributions to the Beatles as largely isignificant and
non-noteworthy.
> >
> > Imagine a concert beginning with "Strawberry Fields Forever"
> > and ending with "A Day In The Life" or "I Want You/She's So Heavy".
Okay....sounds good, I'm imagining it right now.
> > Of course, if Lennon were alive he would be not be trying to
> > live off of past triumphs.
No one knows what Lennon would be doing or saying were he alive now,
but people like and want to hear Paul sing his old songs.
> > When "you've got it" .. being
> > an endless showBiz hustler and image-makeover-fabricator
> > isn't necessary.
> >
Have you read any of the dozens and dozens of unanimously,
overwhelmingly positive newspaper reviews of his concerts or of his
last three studio albums?
The critical consensus seems to be that he has indeed "got it." Do
you suppose John Lennon didn't think Paul "had it" as a songwriter, a
singer and musician and performer? If he did think so, was he wrong?
richforman
> >
> >
> >
> > - Derek
Brian Fried
The music press prefers its subjects to be: controversial (Madonna),
tortured (Michael Stipe of REM), dead (John Lennon, Kurt Cobain), or symbols
of their particular moment in time (Britney Spears).
Amongst all that, there's no room for talented songwriters enjoying life and
writing about the joys of it. Just look at the reviews of Julian Lennon's
last album: all the press wanted to talk about was Julian's difficult
relationship to Yoko, not the album. When was the last time you saw an in
depth article in the American musical press about Barry Manilow? Billy Joel?
Or, for that matter, Sting?
> 1) Writing "lightweight" songs was why he has always drawn criticism.
"Always" being the key word here, Derek. He was criticised for this in the
sixties and seventies, so why wasn't it until John had passed away that the
critcism took a greater importance?
The truth is: it hasn't. Once John was gone, and with him the potential for
a Beatles reunion, the critics had no angle into the music of Paul
McCartney. Paul was happily married, with a family that didn't make
headlines being normal. There was no interest in it for them, and when he
faltered they sharpened their knives just as they did when the Beatles
slipped in 1967 with Magical Mystery Tour.
Paul became the press' favourite punching bag: the superstar who continues
to produce even though they (the critics) know it's not worth paying
attention to what's being released.
And now they're paying for it. A large number of critics admitted their
ignorance of Paul's abilities when Wingspan demonstrated that he had
produced a much larger quantity of excellent songs than first thought. A few
are even going so far as to admit, just as this article has, that the late
80s output -- the Russian album, Flowers In The Dirt, Flaming Pie, Driving
Rain -- has been some of the top music of those years.
> 2) McCartney has also demonstrated that he is not even all that "nice"
> by endless attempts to fabricate history (and trample on John's)
> with his "I did it all" Beatles fiction after John's murder.
> That's real nice?
Have you even bothered to read Many Years From Now, Derek, or are you just
spouting off from what you have heard secondhand?
McCartney has not claimed credit for everything the Beatles did -- far from
it. Instead, he asks that *his* contributions be evaluated fairly, because
they haven't been since 8th December 1980. After John died, it was Lennon
this and Lennon that. Paul is correct in saying that he was the Beatle who
hung out with the avant garde crowd first because John was living the home
life with Cynthia -- but he didn't partake in it to the extent John did when
John got involved later with Yoko. Paul is correct that he also made
experimental films, tape loops, etc. John didn't come up with everything in
a vaccuum.
Most importantly, Derek, I point out for the nth million time that only two
contradictions exist between John and Paul's recounting of their Beatles
history: the credit on "In My Life" and "Eleanor Rigby." Aside from those
two songs, neither account contradicts each other.
There's more lies in people who claim Peter Max had anything to do with
Yellow Submarine.
> Argument accepted.
> Even Albert Goldman acknowledged John Lennon
> as the greatest songwriter of the 20th century.
> When you consider the impact, influence, and substance
> of John's music (the intangibles) not just commercial
> or entertainment considerations .. it really is no contest here.
Lennon was the greatest songwriter, McCartney the greatest tunesmith.
Name me one Lennon solo song which will be performed by quartets and
orchestras in the next fifty years and I'll name you twenty of McCartney's.
Even John ackowledged Paul has an incredible knack for melody and hooks.
Besides, Lennon's solo output is -- from a retrospective point of view --
not as influential as much as first thought. The general themes are there,
but you very rarely witness modern artists referencing his lyrics or, for
that matter, musical style.
The single most influential artist on rock and roll, putting aside all
considerations, is still David Bowie. Bowie is a dozen times more
influential than Lennon in musical style, evolution, performance and
presentation.
> > who routinely takes broadsides
> > in the court of public opinion merely because we prefer our musical
> > geniuses either tortured or dead. Preferably both.
>
> No, that's not it.
Yes it is. Consider the pantheon of popular music: Little Richard, Chuck
Berry, Buddy Holly, Elvis Presley, The Supremes, The Beach Boys, The
Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Who, Hendrix, Pink Floyd, David Bowie, Eric
Clapton, Springsteen, Kiss, The Sex Pistols, The BeeGees, U2, Madonna,
Michael Jackson, REM, Nirvana and, dare I say it, Britney Spears.
Little Richard got screwed by the music industry, as did Berry for his lack
of recognition.
Holly died in a plane crash.
Presley was forced into the army, turned to drugs, had an unfaithful wife,
and died of an OD.
The Supremes, The Beach Boys and The Beatles all broke up with fingers
pointing to this day.
The Rolling Stones have bickered from time to time, lost a member.
The Who lost a member, claimed they were leaving time and time again, and
Townsend is rife with torture.
Hendrix died of an OD.
Pink Floyd are still fighting so much they needed a mediator to release a
hits collection.
David Bowie's music is filled with torturous images thanks to a brother who
was in an asylum and his own love of anarchy.
Clapton danced with drugs, cleaned himself up, and is now tortured by a kid
who died horribly by falling out of a window.
Springsteen represents the tortured soul of modern America in his songs.
KISS have, like the Who, broken up more times than you can remember.
The Sex Pistols burned out quickly, questioning society from their anarchist
point of view.
The Bee Gees are part of disco (which tortured everyone) and reclaimed their
status a bit with the death of one BG.
U2's Bono not only is an activist, he sings about trying to reach Christ.
Madonna is as controversial as they come; sane people don't publish photos
of themselves in whips and chains.
Michael Jackson is clearly tortured by his skin condition and other
conditions.
REM's Michael Stipe is out of the closet, claims homophobia is all around
him.
Nirvana's Kurt Cobain was so tortured he blew his brains out.
Spears is the exception, because she represents teen pop right now. The big
story with her isn't her music (which, quite frankly, has dipped into club
hop like everyone else) but her new, vamp image. Again: who in their right
mind goes wearing their underwear over their pants on national television?
Bottom line: torture is what gives them the story, and so these artists are
praised.
If your dead, they can write anything they want about you.
> We prefer our "musical geniuses" to write more
> impressive songs than "Hello Goodbye"
> (a song more consistent with a "Brady Bunch" special
> than the stuff of any so-called "genius").
Yet the Beatles were considered the greatest music group ever and 99% of
their stuff is just as fluffy. Almost everything Lennon wrote until Revolver
is fluff -- "Please Please Me," "From Me To You," "She Loves You," "I Want
To Hold Your Hand," "If I Fell," "I Should Have Known Better," "No Reply,"
"It's Only Love," "Girl."
> Oh yeah .. Paul's the one who is "the victimized one"...
> Let's see:
>
> Lennon was weighted down by the U.S. Government's Watergate-style
> abuse against him.
Watergate-style? Excuse me??
It appeared only as a limitation of stay and prevention of a green card. It
doesn't matter that the FBI had a file on him: they had files on many
celebrities, and they never affected any of their everyday lives.
Lennon, by the way, asked for it: "Imagine" speaks to pure Communism, and
Communism is illegal in the US (especially in the late sixties and early
seventies when they were fighting the communists for control of the world!).
McCartney had his farm raided numerous times for drugs, and spent time in
prison (something Lennon never did).
> Lennon was weighted down hateful and racist attitudes towards his wife.
This is the first time I've ever heard the race card being played in the
Lennon vs. McCartney debate.
As for hateful: was there any charge, post-Beatles, against Linda, Olivia or
Barbara in the way there has been against Yoko as a barrier between the
lads? It's extremely easy to see that The Beatles went from John, Paul,
George and Ringo to John, Paul, George, Ringo and Yoko. Linda was there too,
but she photographed the band from the sides -- it was her style, and an
extremely effective one. Yoko wanted to participate, and the hatefulness
comes out of the fact that many see her as a principle lever between John
and Paul.
When Linda did try her hand at music in the seventies, the criticism against
Linda for her ability was quite hard on the McCartneys -- Paul mentioned it
on several occassions.
> Lennon was burdened by being shot 5 times until blood ran out of his
> body to the point of death.
And was immediately raised to sainthood.
Paul, in the meantime, was in shock, said something without pause, and has
is still paying for it.
Paul lost his best friend -- that makes him a victim of the crime as much as
Yoko.
> Lennon was condemned by Albert Goldman's character assassination book.
You clearly haven't read Geoff Guillano's book.
> Lennon was condemned by having his personal possessions stolen
(diaries).
McCartney's been called a cheap bastard in the press by his former bandmate
Denny Laine.
> Lennon is condemned by McCartney trying to go around and
> diminish his (obvious) leadership & creative role in the Beatles.
McCartney doesn't condemn Lennon -- read the f***ing book Derek!!
McCartney condemns the press.
> Harrison was condemned by getting stabbed by a stalker.
The price of celebrity... should we say Ringo was greater victim because he
had a bad hangover? The comment by the writer of this article in Rolling
Stone said Paul has been victimized and, in some sense, he has: his career
has been treated as a joke by music critics bent on taking down an icon.
> Harrison was weighted down by brain cancer to the point of ending his
life.
That doesn't make him a victim, Derek; that makes everyone in your family
who's dead victims and I think we could all agree that it's just part of
life.
Paul lost his wife -- someone he spent nearly every day for almost thirty
years with! -- to breast cancer. Does this mean Linda is more of a victim
than Paul in that tragedy? I don't think so. It's saddening whenever someone
passes away to any disease, and it affects everyone. Linda's passing affects
Paul, Heather (McCartney, not Mills), Mary, Stella and James very much.
George's passing clearly affected Eric Clapton, Paul and Ringo as well as
Olivia and Dhani -- and, quite frankly, evaluating who was victimized more
is tasteless.
> Being called "cute" is hardly being "condemned" or "burderned".
> It does not even qualifiy as a mere inconvenience.
It brandishes him as being unimportant. How would you like it, Derek, if
everyone around you at work considered you just to be a body in a seat, and
nothing you do EVER will be of any importance to the company or the world
around you? As an artist, it hurts far worse because this is your soul being
put out there in any form.
Find me one artist who likes bad reviews and I'll find you a hundred more
who feel badly when a critic rips them apart in print.
> The fact that McCartney postures as "the victimized one"
> in light of the very real and horrible human tradegy and
> injustice suffered by Lennon and Harrison says much about
> his shallow and self-centered character.
You are COMPLETELY missing the point, Derek.
The victimization the author is speaking of is specific to treatment in the
music press. Lennon has been praised at the expense of McCartney, who's
contibutions have been marginalized or forgotten (John alone has the right
to be called owner of the Beatles). McCartney's solo work has been ravaged
in the press simply because it is McCartney, and not another person. The
press has it in for him, and it not because of anything he has done
specifically other than not being John Lennon II.
It is not shallow or self-centered to say "Hey, I was there too, you know. I
did have a good idea or two..."
Especially when Paul is one of the first to tell you how much the loss of
John and George impacted him greatly. He never places their passing in
relation to his own troubles, other than to say (as he has correctly in the
past few years) that Lennon's passing changed the way he has been viewed in
relation to John. It's not a criticism of his best friend or his former
bandmate, it's a criticism against those who see nothing better to do that
say Paul isn't John.
> What modesty?
McCartney biographers are the first to admit that the public McCartney is
not the private McCartney, and that Paul keeps his real life outside of the
public consumption as much as possible.
Lennon and Ono, in contrast, enjoy the spotlight around them. So, too, do
many rock stars.
> Is charging $200 for a ticket .. modest?
> (don't tell me he needs the money)
> This isn't what a modest musician does.
> This is what a showBiz-whore does.
I'm glad you don't see any movies, Derek. After all, in your opinion, all
Hollywood and their counterparts at the video stores are showBiz-whores.
Paul has defended his right to charge that price for the seats closest to
the stage by pointing out it is standard for someone of his stature. Given
that the Rolling Stones are charging much more for many more seats than Paul
did, or that CSNY are charging more, I'd say Paul has proved his point.
As for needing the money, I suggest you look into the economics of rock
tours. In 1994, Pink Floyd was one of the most expensive shows of the year;
they finally paid off the North American leg of the tour on the second-last
show.
> And how is "going about the business of being Sir Paul, true musical
royalty"
> an illustration of modesty? What pomposity!
> I can hear Lennon howl with laughter at the idea
> of being "Knighted" and having his PR address him as "Sir".
Why? Because Lennon returned his award?
Personally, I think that if John were alive today he would have been one of
the first to praise Paul on being knighted. John was surprised when Paul
didn't follow him to America, but never criticised him for his love of
Liverpool and the rest of the UK.
Sir Paul, true music royalty, IS an illustration of modesty: in today's
world, where the music press covers every irrelevant detail, a musician who
goes about the business of actually working as a musician is rare. A
musician going about the business of a musician, and not striking vendettas
against the press or anyone else who criticises him is extremely rare.
> Besides, like a phony used-car salesman, the man tries endlessly
> to pervert Beatles history around to take the credit for all of
> its accomplishments (as his own doing).
> Vanity and sleaziness ... yes.
> No modesty whatsoever.
He doesn't take the credit for all of its accomplishments. He may be
incorrect on one or two points (India, in particular, is a hard one to
swallow) but the majority of it matches the accounts of the others who were
there at the time.
> Imagine a concert beginning with "Strawberry Fields Forever"
> and ending with "A Day In The Life" or "I Want You/She's So Heavy".
> Of course, if Lennon were alive he would be not be trying to
> live off of past triumphs. When "you've got it" .. being
> an endless showBiz hustler and image-makeover-fabricator
> isn't necessary.
So why did Lennon play all of those standards, or "Come Together"? We don't
know what a modern concert by John would sound like -- if Double Fantasy was
typical of Lennon's direction in the early eighties he most certainly would
have built a show around Beatles classics and a handful of standards
("Imagine," "Give Peace A Chance").
One thing people like you often forget Derek is that John found peace before
returning to the studio in 1979. So he could have easily returned to his
earlier solo work and dismissed much of it as representations of a darker
time.
George's Japanese tour in the nineties, despite the success of Cloud Nine,
was Beatles heavy. So are Ringo's tours. Would John be different than all
four, or would the distance from the sixties be sufficient for him to
approach it with awe?
As for beginning and closing a concert with those songs, it's entirely
plausible.
dlarsson
> bring out the people who want to keep the Lennon vs. McCartney fight going.
The review had the false premise that Paul was "mistreated"
because he was a "nice guy".
I was responding to that false premise.
> One is dead, the other isnt... you can't compare the
> legacies of an instant saint who no longer has faults against someone who is
> still alive and able to be human.
Another false premise:
1) No one, not even his fans or admirers, ever called John a "Saint".
2) The reverse is true - made clear by various books,
such as Albert Goldman's fraud, .. people have tried
to smear his character and run-him down with
tabloid-sleaze-style biography after his death.
3) Being "human" is not the issue ... being honest about
the Beatles and history is though (something Paul has
repeatedly failed at in a self-serving way).
4) Musical choices, lyrics, artistic goals, etc. are
things that can be judged and appraised ... and have
nothing to do with the false premises of
being: "nice", "tortured", "alive", "dead", "human" or "saint".
- Derek
Todd Mitchell
news:<cd359b2d.02051...@posting.google.com>...
> > It's insane, really, that some folks slag Paul McCartney for doing
> > nothing but being himself: a nice guy.
>
> Being "nice" was never the issue.
>
> 1) Writing "lightweight" songs was why he has always drawn criticism.
Kinda like "Beautful Boy", eh?
> 2) McCartney has also demonstrated that he is not even all that "nice"
> by endless attempts to fabricate history (and trample on John's)
> with his "I did it all" Beatles fiction after John's murder.
> That's real nice?
Source? Quote? (I get the feeling I'm never gonna get one)
>
> > Here's a man, arguably the
> > greatest tunesmith of his generation,
>
> Argument accepted.
> Even Albert Goldman acknowledged John Lennon
> as the greatest songwriter of the 20th century.
> When you consider the impact, influence, and substance
> of John's music (the intangibles) not just commercial
> or entertainment considerations .. it really is no contest here.
Only the one in your head, apparently.
> > who routinely takes broadsides
> > in the court of public opinion merely because we prefer our musical
> > geniuses either tortured or dead. Preferably both.
>
> No, that's not it.
> We prefer our "musical geniuses" to write more
> impressive songs than "Hello Goodbye"
> (a song more consistent with a "Brady Bunch" special
> than the stuff of any so-called "genius").
<snicker> When I think of "genius", for some reason "The Ballad of
John and Yoko" doesn't quite leap off the page.
LOL. Yeah, and that whole wife dying of breast cancer thing, that was
just a *pose*, wasn't it?
>
> > His modesty prevents him from giving much away.
>
> What modesty?
>
> Is charging $200 for a ticket .. modest?
> (don't tell me he needs the money)
> This isn't what a modest musician does.
> This is what a showBiz-whore does.
<gasp> Rock musicians charging money for live performances...what *is*
this world coming to?
> And how is "going about the business of being Sir Paul, true musical royalty"
> an illustration of modesty? What pomposity!
> I can hear Lennon howl with laughter at the idea
> of being "Knighted" and having his PR address him as "Sir".
>
> Besides, like a phony used-car salesman, the man tries endlessly
> to pervert Beatles history around to take the credit for all of
> its accomplishments (as his own doing).
Again, source, quote?
> Vanity and sleaziness ... yes.
> No modesty whatsoever.
Funny, I was thinking the same thing about your post.
>
> > It began with "Hello, Goodbye" and ended with "Sgt. Pepper's
> > Reprise/The End," and in between, Paul McCartney gave the crowd what
> > it came for: some great memories and a really nice night out.
>
>
> Imagine a concert beginning with "Strawberry Fields Forever"
> and ending with "A Day In The Life" or "I Want You/She's So Heavy".
> Of course, if Lennon were alive he would be not be trying to
> live off of past triumphs.
LOL. Priceless. I wonder why Saint John was always performing Beatles
songs *before* he got killed?
> When "you've got it" .. being
> an endless showBiz hustler and image-makeover-fabricator
> isn't necessary.
Especially when you're dead.
Todd
Christian Henriksson
<comi...@hotmail.com> sayeth thus:
>
>"dlarsson" <derek_...@3com.com> wrote in message
>news:cd359b2d.02051...@posting.google.com...
>> > who routinely takes broadsides
>> > in the court of public opinion merely because we prefer our musical
>> > geniuses either tortured or dead. Preferably both.
>>
>> No, that's not it.
>
>Yes it is. Consider the pantheon of popular music: Little Richard, Chuck
>Berry, Buddy Holly, Elvis Presley, The Supremes, The Beach Boys, The
>Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Who, Hendrix, Pink Floyd, David Bowie, Eric
>Clapton, Springsteen, Kiss, The Sex Pistols, The BeeGees, U2, Madonna,
>Michael Jackson, REM, Nirvana and, dare I say it, Britney Spears.
Gonna correct you on a few and add a little.
>The Supremes, The Beach Boys and The Beatles all broke up with fingers
>pointing to this day.
We can also point at the tortured figurehead of Brian Wilson, and two
dead Wilson brothers.
>The Sex Pistols burned out quickly, questioning society from their anarchist
>point of view.
And had a member die, although it was after they broke up.
>The Bee Gees are part of disco (which tortured everyone) and reclaimed their
>status a bit with the death of one BG.
No, none of the Bee Gees are dead (unless Vince or Colin are, but I
don't think so). However, Andy Gibb is dead, and it obviously affected
the three Bee Gee brothers.
>Spears is the exception, because she represents teen pop right now. The big
>story with her isn't her music (which, quite frankly, has dipped into club
>hop like everyone else) but her new, vamp image. Again: who in their right
>mind goes wearing their underwear over their pants on national television?
She's also an exception because she's not a member of the above
pantheon.
Christian Henriksson
(che...@tiscali.se)
--
"The big danger isn't the evil of evil people;
it's the silence of good people."
Gennaro
Danny Caccavo
Fried" <comi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Always" being the key word here, Derek. He was criticised for this in
> the
> sixties and seventies, so why wasn't it until John had passed away that
> the
> critcism took a greater importance?
Actually, Paul wasn't criticised for this until after The Beatles broke
up. At least not significantly.
dc
--
Danny Caccavo
dcac...@nyc.rr.com
"For your information, it IS a baby eagle"
Danny Caccavo
> McCartney has not claimed credit for everything the Beatles did -- far
> from
> it. Instead, he asks that *his* contributions be evaluated fairly,
> because
> they haven't been since 8th December 1980.
Actually, they haven't been since Lennon started ragging on him in the
early '70s.
Everybody ate up "How do you sleep" and the pr spin that John put out.
Danny Caccavo
> > Even Albert Goldman acknowledged John Lennon
> > as the greatest songwriter of the 20th century.
Can't have it both ways.
Danny Caccavo
> Bowie is a dozen times more
> influential than Lennon in musical style, evolution, performance and
> presentation.
More than solo Lennon, not more than Lennon with The Beatles.
Danny Caccavo
> The Bee Gees are part of disco (which tortured everyone) and reclaimed
> their
> status a bit with the death of one BG.
If you're referring to Andy, he was a brother, but not a BeeGee..
Unless someone else died and I didn't hear about it...<g>
Danny Caccavo
> Lennon, by the way, asked for it: "Imagine" speaks to pure Communism, and
> Communism is illegal in the US (especially in the late sixties and early
> seventies when they were fighting the communists for control of the
> world!).
That's not how he asked for it.
He asked for it with his association with the Yippies. Surely one of
the most stupid things he did.
Gennaro
> nothing but being himself: a nice guy.
on that subject, ask denny laine or any of a number of fellows that
used to play with him and ask them if they agree with you. I'm sure
they'd have some other descriptions besides "nice guy." sir facelift
is a nice guy whilst standing in the spotlight in front of an audience
or a camera
derek_...@3com.com (dlarsson) wrote in message news:<cd359b2d.02051...@posting.google.com>...
Danny Caccavo
gm...@angelfire.com (Gennaro) wrote:
> sir facelift
I doubt that. Saw him on Leno, and I didn't see any signs of that.
He's not aging particularly well in terms of the face thing.
jen
news:dcaccavo-C0266E...@news-server.nyc.rr.com...
> In article <e2bF8.22033$w04.2...@news20.bellglobal.com>, "Brian
> Fried" <comi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Lennon, by the way, asked for it: "Imagine" speaks to pure Communism,
and
> > Communism is illegal in the US (especially in the late sixties and early
> > seventies when they were fighting the communists for control of the
> > world!).
>
>
> That's not how he asked for it.
>
> He asked for it with his association with the Yippies. Surely one of
> the most stupid things he did.
>
> dc
>
general? Because he was in the forefront protesting the Vietnam war and
being an icon of the Left? Whereas at the time Paul was hanging out at his
farm in Scotland, having kids, doing a bit of sheep sheering and writing
stuff like "Bip Bop"? There was a great article in British GQ a few years
back entitled 'Why McCartney was better than Lennon', which talked about
this as a reason why so much praise was/is heaped upon Lennon.
Rich Diakun
fellows that used to play with him and ask them if they agree with you. I'm
sure they'd have some other descriptions besides "nice guy." sir facelift is
a nice guy whilst standing in the spotlight in front of an audience or a
camera>>
I'm sure that Paul being such a rotten person explains why Denny Laine stuck
with Wings for the entire ride, while it lasted. Paul was so mean to Denny
that he single-handedly revived his then-moribund career when Wings was
formed. Heck, Paul hated Denny so much, he even had the gall to mention
doing something about his career on "The Tonight Show" when he and St.
Lennon were announcing Apple. Yeah, sounds like a real peach, that rotten
Paul.
- Rich
BlackMonk
"jen" <jsn...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:ac671o$3rp$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> "Danny Caccavo" <dcac...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:dcaccavo-C0266E...@news-server.nyc.rr.com...
> > In article <e2bF8.22033$w04.2...@news20.bellglobal.com>, "Brian
> > Fried" <comi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Lennon, by the way, asked for it: "Imagine" speaks to pure Communism,
> and
> > > Communism is illegal in the US (especially in the late sixties and
early
> > > seventies when they were fighting the communists for control of the
> > > world!).
> >
> >
> > That's not how he asked for it.
> >
> > He asked for it with his association with the Yippies. Surely one of
> > the most stupid things he did.
> >
> > dc
> >
> But isn't that why he's loved by the critics, and popular culture in
> general? Because he was in the forefront protesting the Vietnam war and
> being an icon of the Left?
No. He's loved by the critics because of POB. By popular culture? I dunno.
Because he was good?
Danny Caccavo
<jsn...@email.msn.com> wrote:
Sure, that's why the critics loved him. I was saying that's why the
Nixon administration/FBI had it out for him.
The thing is, Lennon let himself be hijacked by the Yippies.
BlackMonk
> The thing is, Lennon let himself be hijacked by the Yippies.
i'm betting JL would be smiling to himself at the irony of this remark.:)
Danny Caccavo
<preten...@monk.commie> wrote:
I'm missing the irony!
Gennaro
macintosh? hamish stewart? lawrence juber? joe english? denny seiwell?
jimmy mccolloch? the list goes on and on. How about those loyal and
dedicated members of wings that ditched sir facelift at the airport
before they were scheduled to fly to nigeria to record band on the
run?
you've got to do better than that, but of course, you're probably a
loyal worshipper who will come up with some spin to explain these mass
defections from the ranks.
Rich Forman
Well Jimmy McCullough had a pretty good explanation for leaving the
band (he overdosed to death on drugs and booze). Paul just hasn't
used Hamish and Robbie since the '93 tour, but they seem to have
parted amicably, they have only spoken well of Paul and their time
with him in interviews and Beatlefest appearances since then. Joe
English pretty much retired from rock'n'roll to spend more time with
his family after Wings Over America, I think - has he been involved in
music since then? The two BOTR bailers (Denny Siewell and Henry
McCullogh?) mainly didn't want to go to Lagos I believe (correct me if
you've heard anything different) - and if I were Paul I certainly
would have lost their numbers after they quit without notice at the
last minute like that, real professional. Wix has been working with
Paul on and off on a variety of tours and albums for thirteen years
now. And the new guys, Rusty and Abe, had only great stuff to say
about working with Paul on his latest album in lengthy interviews in
the last Beatlefan magazine, and that was before they went into
rehearsal for the current tour, I'd guess they're still happy campers
(I haven't read anything from Gabe Dixon who played keys on the album,
who knows, maybe he didn't like it as much, since he declined to go on
tour. David Kahne seems to be a big Macca friend and fan at this
point, though, acting as musical director on the tour and I keep
hearing he and Paul are planning to work together on another album
soon). And I haven't heard any anti-Paul comments from any members of
the "Run Devil Run" band that he recorded and played with thru '99 and
some of 2000.
All that having been said, I can certainly see how Paul's pretty much
insisting on control over the music, the parts and the arrangements,
could be frustrating, limiting and stressful, for most musicians with
healthy musician-sized egos and heads bursting with ideas, over an
extended period of time. As we all know, this happened within the
Beatles and contributed significantly to their eventual breakup. It's
probably rewarding for a time to work with such a legendary artist,
but after all, most players aspire to be more than full-time sidemen.
(The members of the "Lumpy Trousers" 89-93, and current bands say in
interviews that Paul is open to suggestions and ideas in the studio,
but we all know he has final say.) Obviously this had to be factor
with at least some of the many players who ended up leaving him after
stints with Wings....as you rightfully point out.
So I think Paul came to realize this realistically about himself after
the demise of the umpteenth lineup of Wings, and that's why he hasn't
even really tried to maintain a real long-term band in the last
twenty-two years or so, has really worked more as a solo artist with
back-up bands dutifully recreating album tracks they weren't
originally on, or in collaborations with artists including Elvis
Costello, Youth and Carl Davis.
richforman
P.S. Hey Genarro....truce, white flag....if you want to keep on
talking about this or anything else, let's do it in this way, just
making points using sentences and paragraphs, but without all the
flaming, insults and sarcasm. What do you say. Like, let's not worry
about whether I'm a devoted Macca worshipper or not, instead, why
don't you comment calmly on or reply to my points. I know you can do
it.
Rich Diakun
reputation on the line. Many of the greats were control freaks when it came
to their art. The worst, supposedly, was Frank Zappa. Of course, almost
every one of the former players in one of his bands swore by the guy, rather
than at him. RIP, Frankie.
- Rich
"Rich Forman" <rfor...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:f354f363.0205...@posting.google.com...
Gennaro
I knew jimmy m. had OD'd but was he still a member of wings when it
happened?
OK, I'll accept a truce since you were able to answer my question with
an subtle acknowledgement that sir P's micromanaging and control freak
ways didn't create any long term band member commitments with wings or
any band thereafter. I think what you have are an alumni group who are
reluctant to really dish on sir P's behind the scenes style. Claiming
"other commitments" is an easy out that too many people use in any
profession. After all, it was evident during his beatles days what he
was like when working with others. All you need to hear are some of
the exchanges in let it be. And I thought smoking pot was supposed to
mellow you out?
rfor...@optonline.net (Rich Forman) wrote in message news:<f354f363.0205...@posting.google.com>...
Rich Forman
> Hey Genarro....truce, white flag....
>
> I knew jimmy m. had OD'd but was he still a member of wings when it
> happened?
>
> OK, I'll accept a truce since you were able to answer my question with
> an subtle acknowledgement that sir P's micromanaging and control freak
> ways didn't create any long term band member commitments with wings or
> any band thereafter.
Actually, I pretty much outright acknowledged it. (Although I'd make
the point that Rich Diakun also did above - his control freak ways are
in service of the music he wants to make, with his name on it - none
of the other band members have their reputations on the line with each
song and album - so it is very understandable.)
> I think what you have are an alumni group who are
> reluctant to really dish on sir P's behind the scenes style.
Could be but we have to guess. Probably some of them liked him, some
didn't.
I have as hard a time believing that the man is a complete and total
asshole, as I do thinking that he's a perfect angel - the truth
probably lies somewhere in between?
> After all, it was evident during his beatles days what he
> was like when working with others. All you need to hear are some of
> the exchanges in let it be. And I thought smoking pot was supposed to
> mellow you out?
>
lol
richforman
Brian Fried
Saint, no. Martyr, yes. In the United States, artists who die prematurely
are praised higher than those who die in their sleep - don't ask me why, but
it's just the American death culture.
> 2) The reverse is true - made clear by various books,
> such as Albert Goldman's fraud, .. people have tried
> to smear his character and run-him down with
> tabloid-sleaze-style biography after his death.
Goldman's book is not tabloid, sleaze-style, or a run-him down biography.
It's an honest attempt at understanding John that goes a completely
different path than the one set down by Yoko Ono. (Similarly, Fred Seaman's
book may have a reputation for trash scooping, but it does offer a different
perspective than the official one.) Both Goldman and Seaman have interesting
insight to offer, and -- like any subject or work of art -- the ideas you
believe are based on YOUR weight of the information given.
> 3) Being "human" is not the issue ... being honest about
> the Beatles and history is though (something Paul has
> repeatedly failed at in a self-serving way).
You're a broken record, Derek. John and Paul disagree on the credits for
just two songs out of the entire Lennon-McCartney catalogue. Moreover,
Paul's view of the Beatles' history runs a good portion in line with the
view of everyone else's. There are a handful of errors (the India one being
the biggest, IMHO) but for the most part it's extremely accurate.
> 4) Musical choices, lyrics, artistic goals, etc. are
> things that can be judged and appraised ... and have
> nothing to do with the false premises of
> being: "nice", "tortured", "alive", "dead", "human" or "saint".
Musical choices: Paul is clearly way ahead of John, having tried his hand at
everything from ballroom to technotrance, classical to stadium rock.
Lyrics: John excelled lyrically.
Artistic goals: John's artistic goal in the seventies was to put his
personal pain into music; Paul's artistic goal in the seventies was to prove
he could do it again, that it wasn't a fluke. Both succeeded.
Tortured is a very real premise when looking at the way music is perceived
by critics. Grunge and today's teenpop is respected by critics not because
of its musical value -- which, quite frankly, is mostly non-existent -- but
because of its so-called "reflection of the concerns of today's modern
youth." Critics are more concerned with Britney Spears' portrayal of the
sexually aware teenager than the effect of her sexed up image on teenagers.
Turning this back to the Beatles, John represents the ultimate rock musician
for music critics not for anything he's done musically other than "Give
Peace A Chance," "Power To The People" and "Imagine." As far as they are
concerned, John did what all 'great' artists did: he took a position outside
of society and made a comment, much as it tortured him.
As Paul states in his recent interviews, he's not into that. He's an
optimist, and it shows in his music.
Brian Fried
> > Bowie is a dozen times more
> > influential than Lennon in musical style, evolution, performance and
> > presentation.
>
> More than solo Lennon, not more than Lennon with The Beatles.
According to a recent poll, Bowie was the #1 influence reported by new
bands. The Beatles were #2. Lennon and McCartney's solo careers were much
lower on the list.
Brian Fried
"BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:ac6j0g$muds0$1...@ID-133514.news.dfncis.de...
> > But isn't that why he's loved by the critics, and popular culture in
> > general? Because he was in the forefront protesting the Vietnam war and
> > being an icon of the Left?
>
> No. He's loved by the critics because of POB. By popular culture? I dunno.
> Because he was good?
Plastic Ono Band and Imagine vie for the best of the Lennon solo works in
the minds of critics, but Jen's right: the principle reason Lennon is
admired so much as a solo artist is less for his music and more for his
political stance. The myth of the artist believes that the artist not only
must be starving, and preferably psychologically disturbed (something Lennon
attested to), but must also possess the rare ability to step outside of
society and reveal problems within. Until the end of the 20th century, many
of the artists praised were subversive.
What changed in the late 20th century was the realization that the last two
great painters -- Dali and Picasso -- were certainly not poor. Nor was
Picasso all that disturbed (violent and misogenist, yes, disturbed no). Both
Picasso and Dali also strayed away from politics, preferring -- like the
impressionists and neo-impressionists -- to question the nature of the art
itself. (Popular music has yet to do this completely, as noted by the lack
of real attention to John Cage.)
As a new art, rock and roll music criticism had to prove its value by
applying old thinking. The tortured artist is praised above the master
craftsman at the moment, often until the master craftsman has died -- and
even then many of pop's finer craftsmen are still alive and kicking (as are
many of jazz's as well!).
John's continued criticism of American policy in Vietnam endears him to a
generation of critics who believe the heroes of the sixties and seventies
were the dodgers and protestors, not the poor slobs who actually came home
in one piece.
Mister Charlie
"Brian Fried" <comi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:HKOG8.37677$y17.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> "dlarsson" <derek_...@3com.com> wrote in message
> news:cd359b2d.02051...@posting.google.com...
> > 1) No one, not even his fans or admirers, ever called John a
"Saint".
>
> Saint, no. Martyr, yes. In the United States, artists who die
prematurely
> are praised higher than those who die in their sleep - don't ask me
why, but
> it's just the American death culture.
>
> > 2) The reverse is true - made clear by various books,
> > such as Albert Goldman's fraud, .. people have tried
> > to smear his character and run-him down with
> > tabloid-sleaze-style biography after his death.
>
> Goldman's book is not tabloid, sleaze-style, or a run-him down
biography.
> It's an honest attempt at understanding John that goes a completely
> different path than the one set down by Yoko Ono. (Similarly, Fred
Seaman's
> book may have a reputation for trash scooping, but it does offer a
different
<wipes eyes>
Pull another one!
Mister Charlie
Who inspired Bowie?
Guess.
>
>
Mister Charlie
I don't think there was any one thing John was loved for. His music,
his sharp wit, his general ability to tell the truth and deflate
pomposity, the tender underneath the tough ...that's what consistently
made him stand out. Whether he talked about Vietnam, or Power to the
People, or Imagine peace... whatever, is tertiary. It was the blunt
force of his personality and talent that endeared him to millions.
>
>
Brian Fried
> band (he overdosed to death on drugs and booze).
Paul explains in Wingspan that Jimmy had another offer. It's also important
to note that Wings was family-oriented (band members were encouraged to stay
on the farm during recording sessions) and Jimmy's party lifestyle didn't
mesh with that all that well.
> Paul just hasn't
> used Hamish and Robbie since the '93 tour, but they seem to have
> parted amicably, they have only spoken well of Paul and their time
> with him in interviews and Beatlefest appearances since then.
The 1993 tour was a disappointment for Paul (dates were added and the show
stripped down to get the tour out of the red), and it's clear Paul wanted a
break from touring - especially with a year of Anthology coming up. Robbie
has gone solo, and I don't remember what Hamish is doing. But neither parted
on bad company.
> Joe
> English pretty much retired from rock'n'roll to spend more time with
> his family after Wings Over America, I think - has he been involved in
> music since then? The two BOTR bailers (Denny Siewell and Henry
> McCullogh?) mainly didn't want to go to Lagos I believe (correct me if
> you've heard anything different) - and if I were Paul I certainly
> would have lost their numbers after they quit without notice at the
> last minute like that, real professional.
It didn't have to be professional; the way Paul tells the story, it's almost
as if he looked at the list of EMI studios with Linda, they saw one that was
interesting, and announced it to the band. We don't know what kind of
medication regiment the band members would have had to go through, or how
quickly they had to be at the airport -- not really.
Paul began the album with Denny and Linda alone. When they got back to
England, he did overdubs with the horn section, so there was no real reason
to bring the band back together. The next time he needed a band was for the
film One Hand Clapping in 1974 -- and by this point both of his former
bandmates could have found other gigs.
I think it has to be noted by everyone that despite the abruptness of the
leave (ie. right before they were to get on the plane), none of the Wings
splits are sensational and every one of them seems to be quite amicable.
Wings never recalled anyone to the lineup because Paul is always looking for
something new and different in the mix.
> And I haven't heard any anti-Paul comments from any members of
> the "Run Devil Run" band that he recorded and played with thru '99 and
> some of 2000.
Moreover, if Paul were really that bad to work with, David Gilmour wouldn't
have returned.
> (The members of the "Lumpy Trousers" 89-93, and current bands say in
> interviews that Paul is open to suggestions and ideas in the studio,
> but we all know he has final say.) Obviously this had to be factor
> with at least some of the many players who ended up leaving him after
> stints with Wings....as you rightfully point out.
Did Denny Siwell stay in the UK or return to the US?
Again, with the exception of those two who refused to go to Lagos -- and
Juber & Holly, both of whom had the band break-up on them in Japan -- the
rest left on their own to pursue other interests.
Chris Whitten is a perfect example: after the tour ended in 1990, he went to
work with Dire Straits who were about to tour. That's less a reflection on
Paul (who was busy with the Oratorio) than on Whitten (who wanted to keep
working).
> So I think Paul came to realize this realistically about himself after
> the demise of the umpteenth lineup of Wings, and that's why he hasn't
> even really tried to maintain a real long-term band in the last
> twenty-two years or so, has really worked more as a solo artist with
> back-up bands dutifully recreating album tracks they weren't
> originally on, or in collaborations with artists including Elvis
> Costello, Youth and Carl Davis.
Actually, I have to disagree with you Rich. (One of the few times....!)
Until Denny Laine left in 1981, the War and Peace project was perceived as a
Wings project. (McCartney II, therefore, was a sideline and not the
mainstream pop his band would be achieving.)
With Denny gone, and a desire to stop touring (thanks, in part, to the
collapse of the 80 tour and the death of John Lennon), Paul turned to
session musicians to finish Tug Of War and Pipes Of Peace.
Give My Regards To Broadstreet mixed session musicians and old friends like
David Gilmour and John Paul Jones. Press To Play did likewise. Neither were
intended as bases for a world tour -- especially with Paul disliking the way
Press To Play came out at the end. ("I didn't want to end up in the middle
of America somewhere plugging an album I just didn't like...") When Paul did
perform live, it was often solo.
Hamish Stuart joins Paul at the end of 1987 for some select appearances on
television. Hamish continues with Paul as he tries out various band members
during the recording of Flowers In The Dirt. By the end of the sessions,
Robbie McIntosh, Paul "Wix" Wickens and Chris Whitten have all joined the
band. The band performs with Paul on television and on tour through 1989 and
1990.
At the end of the tour, Chris Whitten opts to join Dire Straits on tour
rather than wait for the next McCartney tour. Paul makes comments that as
long as this band enjoys playing together, he'll keep them with him. Thus it
is this band (with a replacement drummer) that performs on Unplugged,
through Europe at select dates in 1992, and both on television and on tour
through 1993 and 1994.
At the conclusion of the ill-received tour, Paul tells his band that he
won't be needing them for a while. In 1994 and 1995, he records with George
Harrison and Ringo Starr. He continues to record afterwards, with Linda and
son James - asking friends Ringo and Steve Miller to help. The results are
Anthology (1995-1996) followed by Flaming Pie (which Paul states was not
asked for by EMI but he felt like releasing).
There is no tour to support Flaming Pie as that Linda is really sick.
Therefore, no band.
After Linda's passing, Paul decides to do the album of standards he always
wanted to do (again). He calls on an old friend (Gilmour) and gets some top
notch players from other bands to join him record the album and do a few
select shows. There's no need to build a band, since the shows are already
picked and number under a dozen.
The next album requires a band. Rather than going with the previous band,
Paul wants to shake things up again and hires a new set of musicians. Rusty
and Abe continue through the tour, and Paul is forced to bring in Wix and
Brian to finish the band line-up. Whether or not this becomes part of a
permanent band remains to be seen, but it looks probable that we haven't
seen the last of Rusty and Abe (or Wix, or probably Brian) with Paul.
It's a pattern that can really be seen in Wings, too, if you think about it:
the band grows out of the basic trio only when they need to perform.
Brian Fried
"Mister Charlie" <swam...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:acge1e$p7se0$1...@ID-63206.news.dfncis.de...
> Who inspired Bowie?
> Guess.
And who inspired The Beatles? And who inspired Elvis?
I'm not interested in that point. I'm interested in the point that Lennon's
influence, Beatles or not, has been surpassed on newer generations of music
than David Bowie. Which is accurate, given that Bowie's continuous shift in
music style (folk, glam, rock, soul, disco, expressionist, Eurosynth, pop,
acid jazz, techno), dedication to stage performance, unwillingness to
conform to standard concepts of song (try analyzing the lyrics to
Earthling's "Looking for Satellites" without the story behind it!), and
continuous interest in new mediums (bond issues, the internet).
Brian Fried
> I don't think there was any one thing John was loved for. His music,
> his sharp wit, his general ability to tell the truth and deflate
> pomposity, the tender underneath the tough ...that's what consistently
> made him stand out. Whether he talked about Vietnam, or Power to the
> People, or Imagine peace... whatever, is tertiary. It was the blunt
> force of his personality and talent that endeared him to millions.
John was loved for, and always be loved for, the music first and foremost.
His blunt personality is far less important to the millions of average
people out there than it is to the critics who tell those millions which
artists are important and which aren't. The difference in reception between
John and Paul -- which, incidentally, is what all this is about -- comes
from the fact that critics take John's willingness to criticize as far more
important than anything Paul has done or will do, which the writer of the
Rolling Stone article claims is a bit unfair: after all, why should Paul be
penalized for being the nice one who refuses to let anything get to him
publicly and crusades for the environment and animal rights rather than just
blanket peace?
One of the best comparisons I've ever seen between Paul and John is their
Christmas songs. John's is "Happy XMas (War Is Over)," a song that speaks to
world issues without applying any plan to them (other than to end war at
Christmas). Paul's is "Wonderful Christmastime," a much perkier number that
speaks to holiday cheer and being together as a family. Different views of
the holiday, but equally valid hopes for the holidays.
Danny Caccavo
Fried" <comi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Consider how much Bowie was influenced by The Beatles!
Mister Charlie
>
> "Mister Charlie" <swam...@lycos.com> wrote in message
> news:acge1e$p7se0$1...@ID-63206.news.dfncis.de...
> > Who inspired Bowie?
> > Guess.
>
> And who inspired The Beatles? And who inspired Elvis?
>
> I'm not interested in that point. I'm interested in the point that
Lennon's
> influence, Beatles or not, has been surpassed on newer generations of
music
> than David Bowie. Which is accurate,
Which it is not.
It is just another in a long line of endless polls, surveys, and
opinions that have no real meaning except to those compiling them and
those wanting to validate their own opinions.
Brian Fried
> It is just another in a long line of endless polls, surveys, and
> opinions that have no real meaning except to those compiling them and
> those wanting to validate their own opinions.
It was by a respected music journal (Mojo or Q or one of those magazines).
Fact of the matter is, those who grew up on The Beatles became musicians in
the 70s and 80s; today's bands grew up on music from the 70s and 80s, of
which Bowie is one of the dominant - if not THE - dominant performers.
More bands today claim Bowie to be a big influence on them DIRECTLY than the
Beatles. If you want to go to source influence, go back to the Gershwins:
they're (IMHO, and others' as well) a far more important cornerstone of 20th
century music than The Beatles.
dlarsson
>
> Saint, no. Martyr, yes.
If Lennon is the "Martyr" .. than why is it not he
but instead McCartney who is the guy who was
officially "Knighted" and is treated like royalty
by everyone -?
(meanwhile Lennon's civil rights were violated
when he was alive by the U.S. Gov. and his private
life maliciously smeared around after his murder).
Additionally, when Lennon was ALIVE he was recognized
with the BBC "Man of the Decade" award (and McCartney
wasn't even anywhere in the running) - proof that
Lennon was perceived in a different way as a more profound
cultural and leadership music figure ... than the other Beatles
well -BEFORE- any of them had ever died.
Try, as you might, the facts don't fit your premise.
McCartney has been fawned-over, awarded, and celebrated
in a way that -he never, ever was- during the 1970s
(when Lennon was around). Meanwhile, you can't even buy a
CD box set of Lennon's recorded solo music, which has been
out of print now for over 8 years (i'm not referring to
the 'Anthology' outtakes collection).
> > 2) The reverse is true - made clear by various books,
> > such as Albert Goldman's fraud, .. people have tried
> > to smear his character and run-him down with
> > tabloid-sleaze-style biography after his death.
>
> Goldman's book is not tabloid, sleaze-style, or a run-him down biography.
> It's an honest attempt
Nonsense. You are out of your depth here.
Goldman's book is a proven fraud and smear-job.
His reliance on two insignificant references - both
one time employees that Yoko had fired (a total
conflict of interest) and a invalid lack of reliance
on the people closest to Lennon is well documented.
More importantly, he fabricated references, warped and
altered what they had said (confirmed in Dr. John's book),
and bribed people he interviewed with meals and drinks
for "dirt on Lennon". This man clearly was not seeking
an objective portrait of John Lennon - it was a
one-sideid, exaggerated, cartoon-like, character-assassination-job
from start to finish .. devoid of the insights, sharp humor,
positive ideals, desire for public debate on social issues, warmth,
charmisma, wit, energy, and intelligent brooding, questioning,
and aggression that marked his personality (as exemplified
by his work, charitable causes, interviews, etc.).
> > 3) Being "human" is not the issue ... being honest about
> > the Beatles and history is though (something Paul has
> > repeatedly failed at in a self-serving way).
> John and Paul disagree on the credits for
> just two songs out of the entire Lennon-McCartney catalogue.
Before 1980 .... yes.
After 1980 - McCartney put out his book: "Many Whoppers From Now"
where he claims 50% credit for Lennon's "Do You Want To Know A Secret"
and similarly false credit for Lennon's songs such as: "Girl", "Help",
"Rain", "Happy Just To Dance With You", etc. There is a long
list of strong conflicts here with Lennon's 1980 account.
Furthermore, the contention McCartney makes here is that he
was the "music experimentor" and Lennon was not - despite the
Beatles recorded material itself proving the exact opposite
and George Martin's own book documenting how the details
for the piece he scored for "A Day In The Life" came from
John Lennon's dialog with him and instructions
(which McCartney fictiously takes sole 100% credit for).
McCartney has been proven (by the confluence of
conflicting statements of other members of the
Beatles inner-circle) to be a peddler of "beetles fiction".
It is so clear that even Ringo (not one to rock the boat)
was quoted as making this statement:
"Paul wants to be -known- as the one who 'did it all'
.. which I think is .... not true."
-Ringo Starr
If you are bright enough to parse the "delicately" worded
language here .. what Ringo is saying is that .. McCartney
isn't telling everyone the straight story - i.e., he is lying.
> > 4) Musical choices, lyrics, artistic goals, etc. are
> > things that can be judged and appraised ... and have
> > nothing to do with the false premises of
> > being: "nice", "tortured", "alive", "dead", "human" or "saint".
> Musical choices: Paul is clearly way ahead of John,
Nonsense. When Paul is not re-playing and re-promoting
Beatles material .. what he is then left with is simply
conventional, ordinary, pop music.
His so-called "classical" music was, unlike Billy Joel's
recent album, nothing more than material that was
scored out and worked up by a hired orchestra conductor.
Paul himself neither created any "classical" or
other unusual musical concepts .. nor performed
any such "classical" music.
> Lyrics: John excelled lyrically.
I think: Happy Christmas, Mind Games, #9 Dream, Imagine,
Oh My Love, Whatever Gets You Through The Night, Beautiful Boy,
Grow Old With Me, How, New York City, John Sinclair, Power To The People,
Asiemusen, Out The Blue, Bless You, I'm Losing You, Nobody Told Me,
How Do You Sleep, etc. show quite a lot was going on musically
as well here. I don't think Paul ever equaled the elegance
and beauty of "Imagine" or "Grow Old With Me" or "Beautiful Boy".
Given a career shortened by fear (U.S. Gov. intelligence survelliance),
a re-committment to family (Sean), and murder ... Lennon acheived
far more on a cultural and influence level with his music than McCartney
did with his plethora of silly love songs and marketing campaigns.
> Artistic goals: John's artistic goal in the seventies was to put his
> personal pain into music; Paul's artistic goal in the seventies was to prove
> he could do it again, that it wasn't a fluke. Both succeeded.
I think the Nixon adminstration was worried about different
"aritistic goals" from Lennon ... than "his pain"
(see the book: Come Together by Jon Weiner).
Lennon's plan was for a 1972 year-long "Woodstock-style"
rock supergroup force to peacefully promote voter
registration for 18-year-olds (a first for the 1972 elections)
and, specifically, to get Nixon out of office, and to
end the Vietnam War.
Had the U.S. Gov. not shut down Lennon's political activism,
Lennon's "rock against Nixon" supergroup efforts may have
created a level of gravity and influence for Rock music
that exceeded the Beatles phenomena in both significance and
social change.
All McCartney did was prove he could sell pop records, a
very small acheivement when you are good looking
and have a pretty voice (to start with).
- Derek
Mister Charlie
>
> "Mister Charlie" <swam...@lycos.com> wrote in message
> news:achh7h$q4vmf$1...@ID-63206.news.dfncis.de...
> > It is just another in a long line of endless polls, surveys, and
> > opinions that have no real meaning except to those compiling them
and
> > those wanting to validate their own opinions.
>
> It was by a respected music journal (Mojo or Q or one of those
magazines).
> Fact of the matter is, those who grew up on The Beatles became
musicians in
> the 70s and 80s; today's bands grew up on music from the 70s and 80s,
of
> which Bowie is one of the dominant - if not THE - dominant performers.
It doesn't matter if it's Rolling Stone or Mix Magazine, it's just a
small sampling of people. It's meaning is limited at best.
>
> More bands today claim Bowie to be a big influence on them DIRECTLY
than the
> Beatles. If you want to go to source influence, go back to the
Gershwins:
> they're (IMHO, and others' as well) a far more important cornerstone
of 20th
> century music than The Beatles.
I disagree. Although there is room for all of the influential
musicians, there needn't be just one set (of which, if pressed, I would
say was Louis Armstrong).
>
>
Christian Henriksson
(dlarsson) sayeth thus:
>> > 1) No one, not even his fans or admirers, ever called John a "Saint".
>>
>> Saint, no. Martyr, yes.
>
> If Lennon is the "Martyr" .. than why is it not he
> but instead McCartney who is the guy who was
> officially "Knighted" and is treated like royalty
> by everyone -?
Because he's dead.
>> > 4) Musical choices, lyrics, artistic goals, etc. are
>> > things that can be judged and appraised ... and have
>> > nothing to do with the false premises of
>> > being: "nice", "tortured", "alive", "dead", "human" or "saint".
>
>> Musical choices: Paul is clearly way ahead of John,
>
> Nonsense. When Paul is not re-playing and re-promoting
> Beatles material .. what he is then left with is simply
> conventional, ordinary, pop music.
So you're listening to McCartney albums, Derek? Isn't that
fraternising with the enemy? Careful, you'll be expelled from your
little group.
>> Lyrics: John excelled lyrically.
>
> I think: Happy Christmas,
"Stewball" is a traditional song.
>Imagine,
Musically not very inspiring, but adequate for its lyrical theme.
> Whatever Gets You Through The Night
I have to say that this song has what is possibly the dullest melody
of all solo Beatle songs (but I haven't listened to all of Ringo's
yet, though).
> John Sinclair,
Right. In this case it's the lyrics that aren't up to par.
>Power To The People,
You're kidding, right?
>show quite a lot was going on musically
> as well here.
The others you mentioned I agree with.
> I don't think Paul ever equaled the elegance
> and beauty of "Imagine" or "Grow Old With Me" or "Beautiful Boy".
That's because you haven't heard "Hear Today", to name but one
example.
> Given a career shortened by fear (U.S. Gov. intelligence survelliance),
> a re-committment to family (Sean), and murder ... Lennon acheived
> far more on a cultural and influence level with his music than McCartney
> did with his plethora of silly love songs and marketing campaigns.
>
>> Artistic goals: John's artistic goal in the seventies was to put his
>> personal pain into music; Paul's artistic goal in the seventies was to prove
>> he could do it again, that it wasn't a fluke. Both succeeded.
>
> I think the Nixon adminstration was worried about different
> "aritistic goals" from Lennon ... than "his pain"
> (see the book: Come Together by Jon Weiner).
>
> Lennon's plan was for a 1972 year-long "Woodstock-style"
> rock supergroup force to peacefully promote voter
> registration for 18-year-olds (a first for the 1972 elections)
> and, specifically, to get Nixon out of office, and to
> end the Vietnam War.
> Had the U.S. Gov. not shut down Lennon's political activism,
> Lennon's "rock against Nixon" supergroup efforts may have
> created a level of gravity and influence for Rock music
> that exceeded the Beatles phenomena in both significance and
> social change.
If all that is true - which I hesitate to believe - it just disproves
your thesis, namely that Lennon achieved a lot.
> All McCartney did was prove he could sell pop records, a
> very small acheivement when you are good looking
> and have a pretty voice (to start with).
Yeah, because everyone who is pretty and can sing well sell records in
millions.
Christian Henriksson
(che...@tiscali.se)
--
"The big danger isn't the evil of evil people;
it's the silence of good people."
Nil
news:cd359b2d.02052...@posting.google.com:
> If Lennon is the "Martyr" .. than why is it not he but instead
> McCartney who is the guy who was officially "Knighted" and is
> treated like royalty by everyone -?
For me, it comes down to one thing: on the whole, I like McCartney's
music better than Lennon's. IMO, after an initial surge, John's
music declined in quality and interest. Had he lived, maybe he would
have regained his muse. McCartney has continued to try different things
and still to this day puts out the occasional gem.
I like the concept of John Lennon more than the actual art itself.
Danny Caccavo
<redn...@lycos.com> wrote:
> I like the concept of John Lennon more than the actual art itself
I'll have to remember that line!
"John is a concept by which we measure our pain"....<g>
Brian Fried
> If Lennon is the "Martyr" .. than why is it not he
> but instead McCartney who is the guy who was
> officially "Knighted" and is treated like royalty
> by everyone -?
You cannot posthumously knight someone. The only Beatle alive who can be
knighted is Ringo. (Paul and George Martin having been knighted, and John
and George both dead.)
The highest award John got was his MBE, which he returned in response to
involvement in Vietnam -- and, more importantly, the falling of "Cold
Turkey" in the charts.
To the music critics, John was killed for his beliefs. (The fact that Mark
David Chapman had severe psychological problems is often sidelined.)
Therefore he is a martyr.
You may be thinking of Catholic martyrs that were raised to sainthood by the
Church. That can't happen with John because, IIRC, he didn't practice
religion all that much.
> (meanwhile Lennon's civil rights were violated
> when he was alive by the U.S. Gov. and his private
> life maliciously smeared around after his murder).
Could you please identify the specific ways in which John's civil rights
were violated?
The FBI watched him, and occassionally - with a warrant more often than
not - tapped his phone. The FBI is allowed those powers to catch subversives
in action. It's the power they use against terrorists and other people who
threaten to bring down the government.
I think it's pretty much been established here that his dabbling in Maoism
and his association with the Yippies made John a potential subversive in the
eyes of the government. At first they denied him permanent residence status
(which is NOT a violation of his civil rights) and eventually they let him
in.
Turning to his "private life maliciously smeared around after his murder"...
you do know Yoko Ono has an agenda too, don't you Derek? If you don't, then
you're clearly not viewing the situation objectively.
Yoko's agenda is to maintain this image of John as important art figure. She
continues to find material not released for commercial consumption that can
be packaged for collections. She licenses John's image so that it will be
recognized.
Yoko does not want anyone speaking a view that runs contrary to her own.
Fred Seaman worked for John Lennon, and has the right to share his
experiences with those interested in them. Is this smearing John's personal
life? No. It's an account, and one that will include some events that don't
match up with the 'established' narrative set out by Yoko.
John's personal life was equally smeared by himself; he and Yoko split up a
number of times in the seventies, and he had a romantic affair with May
Pang.
Quite frankly, both May and Fred have been quite respectful in the way they
talk about John and Yoko and what they witnessed.
It's much easier to get recollections from live people than dead ones. ;)
> Additionally, when Lennon was ALIVE he was recognized
> with the BBC "Man of the Decade" award (and McCartney
> wasn't even anywhere in the running) - proof that
> Lennon was perceived in a different way as a more profound
> cultural and leadership music figure ... than the other Beatles
> well -BEFORE- any of them had ever died.
And when Lennon was alive, McCartney was honoured by the Guiness Book of
World Records with a Rhodium disc - something no other musician has been
awarded since for their sales achievement.
The BBC award is a small group of people giving out an award with what
really accounts to little importance. Want importance? The music *industry*
gave its Lifetime Achievement award to Paul first, John second - but then,
it's not as if the awards effect the music.
The R&R Hall of Fame, though, is a competely different matter: that's an
American bias-based organization with a clear politicial agenda - they vote
with the entry show in mind.
> McCartney has been fawned-over, awarded, and celebrated
> in a way that -he never, ever was- during the 1970s
> (when Lennon was around).
When Lennon was around, he couldn't fill Madison Square. Paul was the one
who succeeded back on stage.
And you can't really compare the awards in the 70s to the 80s and 90s: there
are many more organizations out there giving awards these days. Today's
musicians have to think of the Grammies, American Music Awards, Golden
Globes, People's Choice, MTV Music, MTV Europe, MTV Video, The Brit Awards,
The Junos (since there's a best non-Canadian award), The Young People's
Award (if you're under 25), The Billboard Awards, and so on and so on and so
on.
When the Beatles were around, you had Top Of The Pops (a guage of hits in
Britain), the sales charts and only one really important one: The Grammies.
> Meanwhile, you can't even buy a
> CD box set of Lennon's recorded solo music, which has been
> out of print now for over 8 years (i'm not referring to
> the 'Anthology' outtakes collection).
Blame Yoko. She controls what's available.
And at least you HAVE a Lennon box set available someway (ie. used). There
has yet to be a McCartney box set, simply because - to paraphrase Paul - he
doesn't do retrospectives because they distract from the new projects he's
in.
> Nonsense. You are out of your depth here.
> Goldman's book is a proven fraud and smear-job.
Proven by whom? The last I looked, a number of people are now treating
Goldman as a book with decent research mired by too many errors - errors
which can only be found by contrasting it with other texts.
> His reliance on two insignificant references - both
> one time employees that Yoko had fired (a total
> conflict of interest)
Conflict of interest??
Are you claiming this to be a vendetta, Derek?
If so, can you even consider the possibility that a portion of what these
sources are saying is true?
My point was that Yoko has one version of the story, others have theirs.
Proof in point: "Flaming pie." According to Paul, he wanted to say in
Anthology that the man on the flaming pie story was a fake, and that the
name Beatles had come about in a different way. George also remembered it
being fake. Yoko, however, used her power of veto to keep that portion of
the Beatles myth alive. Yoko's version is different than both George and
Paul's. George and Paul aren't smearing anything -- they just have a
different version of what happened.
We're not robots, Derek. Only you seem to think your perception is the sole
correct one. Real human beings acknowledge that no two people look on
something in exactly the same way.
> and a invalid lack of reliance
> on the people closest to Lennon is well documented.
What did these employees do?
> More importantly, he fabricated references, warped and
> altered what they had said (confirmed in Dr. John's book),
> and bribed people he interviewed with meals and drinks
> for "dirt on Lennon".
It's not bribing, it's called working a source.
These people weren't so destitute that they were living on the street. You
have to pay for them to speak, it's expected. It happens all the time in
journalism.
When Yoko goes on television to talk -- like on Larry King -- she gets paid
to. So she's selling her "dirt on Lennon" just like everyone else, except
she gets the honour of being identified as his wife from 1969 to 1980. (A
wife, incidentally, who did not spend the entire period of 1969 to 1980 with
her husband, so she can't speak of every event with accuracy.)
> This man clearly was not seeking
> an objective portrait of John Lennon - it was a
> one-sideid, exaggerated, cartoon-like, character-assassination-job
> from start to finish .. devoid of the insights, sharp humor,
> positive ideals, desire for public debate on social issues, warmth,
> charmisma, wit, energy, and intelligent brooding, questioning,
> and aggression that marked his personality (as exemplified
> by his work, charitable causes, interviews, etc.).
You don't read many biographies, do you? I can't think of a single biography
that does all that -- not on John, not on anyone. Real people are
complicated. Biographies try to make it simple to understand.
> Before 1980 .... yes.
Before 1980, Paul didn't talk about the Beatles all that much. He wanted the
world to concentrate on something more important to him, a little thing
called Wings. George wrote his own biography to set his story out, but it
was John who returned to the Beatles time and time again.
Not that we should be complaining; he left a dearth of material to sift
through. But he conflicted himself at times, wasn't asked about certain
subjects, and so on.
> After 1980 - McCartney put out his book: "Many Whoppers From Now"
> where he claims 50% credit for Lennon's "Do You Want To Know A Secret"
> and similarly false credit for Lennon's songs such as: "Girl", "Help",
> "Rain", "Happy Just To Dance With You", etc. There is a long
> list of strong conflicts here with Lennon's 1980 account.
Lennon's own accounts conflicted as time progressed - other contributors
here have identified them. And Paul isn't just thinking about the lyrics,
he's thinking about melody, rhythm, arrangement, etc. He may be looking at
things, or remembering specific parts of the creative process that we are
not party to. Maybe it was Paul who suggested the basic kernal of the story?
Maybe it was Paul who came up with a key musical phrase? That's why he could
be rating it as high as he is - you'd have to ask him specifically where he
came up with those numbers.
Reporters don't seem to be asking. They have other questions to ask.
> Furthermore, the contention McCartney makes here is that he
> was the "music experimentor" and Lennon was not - despite the
> Beatles recorded material itself proving the exact opposite
> and George Martin's own book documenting how the details
> for the piece he scored for "A Day In The Life" came from
> John Lennon's dialog with him and instructions
> (which McCartney fictiously takes sole 100% credit for).
McCartney may make a few errors just like any other normal human being, but
you're making an error if you think Paul is taking 100% credit for the
musical experimentation.
Paul's case is that while John was trapped in the home life of suburbia, he
was much freer to experiment and move into art circles. By the time John
left Cynthia and got heavily involved in the art world, Paul had decided to
turn his attention to settling down with a family. He did come up with a
host of ideas -- tape loops, etc. -- that the Beatles used; unfortunately,
there are critics who, like you apparently, refuse to accept that he did
anything except write dippy love songs, kid songs and obey his omniscient
master John Lennon: a situation clearly not the case.
> It is so clear that even Ringo (not one to rock the boat)
> was quoted as making this statement:
> "Paul wants to be -known- as the one who 'did it all'
> .. which I think is .... not true."
> -Ringo Starr
Ringo is saying Paul is taking *too much* credit, not that all of his
statements are untrue or that there are things Paul is asking for credit
that are deserved.
Of course, this may not be the reading of the whole quote, you haven't
provided it.
> If you are bright enough to parse the "delicately" worded
> language here .. what Ringo is saying is that .. McCartney
> isn't telling everyone the straight story - i.e., he is lying.
Again, it's a statement about quantity. Paul is lying that he did it all; he
certainly did some. Had he been lying about everything, Ringo would have
said that Paul's not responsible for anything he's taking credit for.
Remember, Derek: this is a war for the opinion of the critic and historical
accountability; in that realm, there IS a difference in the perception of
Lennon and McCartney that is incorrect. Lennon's solo career is filled with
dismissable material as is McCartney's; and both have pieces that deserve
more praise than given. A critic earns their keep by going contrary to
public opinion.
> Nonsense. When Paul is not re-playing and re-promoting
> Beatles material .. what he is then left with is simply
> conventional, ordinary, pop music.
Paul has much more musical diversity than many give him credit for. He's
also refused to retread the same old ground (unlike many modern musicians),
and is constantly seeking ways to challenge himself in the studio and
writing process. You won't find any other artist saying that they just don't
fit today's format stations because they're too far across the spectrum, and
he's quite right in saying that.
> His so-called "classical" music was, unlike Billy Joel's
> recent album, nothing more than material that was
> scored out and worked up by a hired orchestra conductor.
Billy Joel's recent album of classical music is actually a compilation of
pieces he dabbled with as a potential movie score. Joel refuses to
acknowledge it as "real" classical music (more like classical pop) and --
most importantly -- he wrote it for someone else far more qualified to play.
Not to mention it's a solo piano piece. Paul composed "A Leaf" for solo
piano on his own too.
Paul McCartney can't read or write music. He doesn't want to learn because
he's afraid he'll lose the magic of songwriting. The Beatles, incidentally,
would not have been what they were had they learned proper songwriting
techniques because it was their naivete about the rules of music that let
them bend the rules when needed.
Paul uses a computer to help him score out his pieces. He also records what
he composes in the studio on a piano or keyboard or whatever. Then he hands
it to someone who *can* write music to translate his composition into sheet
music that can be understood by classical musicians. He watches the process,
and makes sure that the final project matches HIS vision.
If he gets someone to help him translate it into something OTHER musicians
to play, and makes sure what they play back is what he intended, then it's
true composition of classical music with assistance in the actual scoring.
He is the composer who comes up with the music itself.
> Paul himself neither created any "classical" or
> other unusual musical concepts .. nor performed
> any such "classical" music.
Billy Joel didn't. Neither did Englebert Humperdink either, IIRC.
The only musician that I can think of who does rock and can perform
classical is Ian Anderson and the rest of Jethro Tull. Then again, Anderson
conducts an orchestra as well. :)
Why do you have a problem with him offering the premiere of a piece toa
young talented artist? Anya Alexeyev performed "A Leaf" for the Royal
Academy of Music performance while Paul came on later in the show to perform
with Elvis Costello and the Brodsky Quartet... that's certainly a nicer
gesture than doing the entire show himself!
> I don't think Paul ever equaled the elegance
> and beauty of "Imagine" or "Grow Old With Me" or "Beautiful Boy".
That's subjective. McCartney lyrics with elegance and beauty? Off the top of
my head I offer "Warm And Beautiful," "Somedays," "From A Lover To A
Friend," "Junk," "Some People Never Know," "Winter Rose/Love Awake," "Treat
Her Gently/Lonely Old People," "Footprints," "Dress Me Up As A Robber,"
"Distractions" and "Mistress And Maid."
> Given a career shortened by fear (U.S. Gov. intelligence survelliance),
Did the US government stop John from recording?? What world are you living
in???
> a re-committment to family (Sean), and murder ...
And drug addicition. And severe psychological problems.
> Lennon acheived
> far more on a cultural and influence level with his music than McCartney
> did with his plethora of silly love songs and marketing campaigns.
McCartney wasn't interested in the accolades and becomign a cultural icon.
As Frannie notes, it was something he really didn't think about. In the
seventies, Paul's goal was just to keep making music. He did that.
John wanted to find inner peace. It wasn't until he left music and public
speaking -- left the activities you mark as better than McCartney's -- that
he found it.
Much of the press refuses to accept that it was a songwriting team. John
Lennon AND Paul McCartney. Paul wants to be recognized as half of that team.
Without the Beatles, his solo career would be evaluated much higher than it
is. That's a fact. It's also a fact that he wouldn't have given up the
experience of being a Beatle for anything.
> I think the Nixon adminstration was worried about different
> "aritistic goals" from Lennon ... than "his pain"
> (see the book: Come Together by Jon Weiner).
But what did the Nixon administration do to John other than refuse permanent
residence status? The FBI had files on the Kennedys... did that affect their
time in public office?
> Lennon's plan was for a 1972 year-long "Woodstock-style"
> rock supergroup force to peacefully promote voter
> registration for 18-year-olds (a first for the 1972 elections)
> and, specifically, to get Nixon out of office, and to
> end the Vietnam War.
John could have continued to support this idea from afar had he really
wanted to. "Imagine" is based on Lennon's brief interest in Maoism... he
ended the flirtation himself and looked to other ideals, so why couldn't he
have lost interest in the rock supergroup?
Also, had this really been a serious movement, it would have gotten more
attention in the post-Beatles biographies of John. It doesn't. Instead,
post-Beatles biographies focus on: (a) his attempts at psychological
assistance, (b) his "feud" with Paul through song lyrics, (c) marital
problems with Yoko that led to an affair, (d) the poor reception for his
final stage shows, (e) the collapse of the rock and roll sessions, (f) his
time away from music, (g) his return to music and (h) his death.
> Had the U.S. Gov. not shut down Lennon's political activism,
> Lennon's "rock against Nixon" supergroup efforts may have
> created a level of gravity and influence for Rock music
> that exceeded the Beatles phenomena in both significance and
> social change.
I sincerely doubt that. You're putting too much weight on the idea of pop
music as lever for political change. If that really were the case, then the
protesters at the 68 Democratic National Convention ("the whole world's
watching") and the hippie movement would have curtailed America's
involvement in Vietnam.
Pop music -- like other art forms -- has been an excellent device for noting
important social issues. John focused on love over war. Paul has focused on
the environment and animal rights. But unless a legitimate plan able to
withstand scrutiny is offered, there can never be an effective
implementation of these romantic ideas.
Bono of U2 has had a far more real impact on the world than John Lennon ever
did. Lennon preached peace, but in all his meetings with politicians and the
like never offered a solution to assist the world in moving towards that
goal. Bono, in contrast, meets with politicians and tells them the real
impact of forgiving third world debt; he wants the G8 to bring it to the
table and discuss it as a device for kick starting those third world
economies into the new millenium -- a legitimate plan that can be applied
and stand the criticism.
> All McCartney did was prove he could sell pop records, a
> very small acheivement when you are good looking
> and have a pretty voice (to start with).
McCartney also worked very hard for environmental issues and animal rights
at a time when it was not vogue to do so. He tries to keep his non-public
actions annonymous, but he does work on these issues at a grass roots level.
That's something he should be admired for, and he's not.
Brian Fried
"Nil" <redn...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:Xns92179C67...@65.96.0.182...
> For me, it comes down to one thing: on the whole, I like McCartney's
> music better than Lennon's. IMO, after an initial surge, John's
> music declined in quality and interest. Had he lived, maybe he would
> have regained his muse. McCartney has continued to try different things
> and still to this day puts out the occasional gem.
More than the occassional gem, I would say, but the point is genuine.
Actually, I would say it has less to do with a striving to follow the muse
as it does a genuine concern with reception for the work and the challenge
of creating that work. If Paul is conservative, it's because he doesn't want
people to be turned off. (The same reasoning can be applied to his Beatles
days, when he presented the most conservative physical image of the four at
the end.)
Paul is the musician; his solo work will be translated into other forms
because it can be.
Lennon is the lyricist; his solo work will be looked at for its words more
than its music.
> I like the concept of John Lennon more than the actual art itself.
Which doesn't mean that there's pieces Lennon contributed that you dislike,
right? ;)
Bob Gill
> Additionally, when Lennon was ALIVE he was recognized
> with the BBC "Man of the Decade" award (and McCartney
> wasn't even anywhere in the running) - proof that
> Lennon was perceived in a different way as a more profound
> cultural and leadership music figure ... than the other Beatles
> well -BEFORE- any of them had ever died.
I meant to say before that you're actually right about this. I keep hearing that
since John's death, people have elevated his role in the Beatles and sometimes put
down Paul as a lightweight, but this was going on for a decade before that. A good
part of it was instigated by John, especially in the 1970 Rolling Stone interview,
but there's no question that this idea existed, whatever the reason. Rolling Stone
could still give rave reviews to the likes of Band on the Run or the Wings Over
America tour, but even they generally started out something like "This album (or
tour) should convince all the skeptics that Paul McCartney is still a major
force..." So there was definitely some negative feeling there already, whether
wrong or right.
Oh, another example: George Harrison, on the David Frost show (I think) in 1971,
just about the time the Bangla-Desh show came out on record, said Paul's songs of
late all sounded like, "Bip bop, baby," and chuckled at the thought. (I didn't
know at the time that he was referring to an actual song; George must've heard an
early pressing.) And don't forget Ringo's song Back Off Boogaloo, reportedly about
Paul, which said, among other things: "Every thing you try to do, you know it sure
sounds wasted."
> > John and Paul disagree on the credits for
> > just two songs out of the entire Lennon-McCartney catalogue.
>
> Before 1980 .... yes.
This was never really true. I was just reading John's 1980 Playboy interview
this week, and it reminded me of something I noticed years ago: He pretty
consistently says "All mine" for *his* songs and "I helped a little" for *Paul's.*
Which is quite similar to what Paul does, only in reverse. They actually disagree
on a lot of them, if you look at it that way.
However, it's pretty easy to see what's going on: Each one tends to remember his
own contributions and forget the other's on occasion, which is entirely natural.
McCartney's claims regarding "Norwegian Wood" or "In My Life" are no different
from Lennon's claims about "Eleanor Rigby."
And, as someone pointed out on r.m.b.m., the main point is that if John
originated the idea for the song, he was the one who had final say over any of
Paul's contributions, and vice versa. John says as much when discussing Yellow
Submarine. He says he added a line or two, as did Donovan, and they all chipped in
ideas in the studio, but it was Paul's idea, Paul's original verse and chorus, so
it's a Paul song. If you just remember that, there's really no problem about any
of their songs. Eleanor Rigby is Paul's, In My Life is John's, and so on.
> > Lyrics: John excelled lyrically.
>
> I think: Happy Christmas, Mind Games, #9 Dream, Imagine,
> Oh My Love, Whatever Gets You Through The Night, Beautiful Boy,
> Grow Old With Me, How, New York City, John Sinclair, Power To The People,
> Asiemusen, Out The Blue, Bless You, I'm Losing You, Nobody Told Me,
> How Do You Sleep, etc. show quite a lot was going on musically
> as well here. I don't think Paul ever equaled the elegance
> and beauty of "Imagine" or "Grow Old With Me" or "Beautiful Boy".
Well, I can't argue with that _ what you think is what you think _ but I think
something quite different. I believe you're saying these songs are quite good
musically, and for my money they're mostly nothing to write home about (although
I'd be happy to write almost any of them, of course). New York City? Power to the
People? They're pretty generic, although I like 'em both, but they're standard
rock 'n' roll fare _ like Hi Hi Hi, which I like even better.
For my money, Hey Jude and Let It Be stand head and shoulders over all the songs
you mentioned for "elegance and beauty."
And speaking of lyrics, John's lyrics, while interesting and often sharp, are
also often sloppy _ evidence, probably, of his well-known impatience. Strawberry
Fields Forever, even, has a weak second verse that despite John's explication of
it still reads like gibberish. The first verse, though, is pretty near perfect,
and the last one, which starts of as gibberishy as the second, is pulled out by
the last line, "That is, I think I disagree." So, yes, he tries the high wire more
than Paul, but he also has his share of free falls.
> Given a career shortened by fear (U.S. Gov. intelligence survelliance),
> a re-committment to family (Sean), and murder ... Lennon acheived
> far more on a cultural and influence level with his music than McCartney
> did with his plethora of silly love songs and marketing campaigns.
Here you're losing me. Lennon's lasting influence will be entirely (or almost
entirely) due to his songs, not due to the fact that he and Yoko sat in bed for a
week, chanting slogans and waiting for the U.S. to get out of Vietnam. He had more
lucid moments, to be sure, but that's the stuff that really put him in the news,
and it's hardly Earth-shaking.
I'm pointing out the spots where I agree with you just to show you how an
intelligent and open-minded person discusses things. I have yet to see evidence of
either of these qualities from you, but I remain open-minded about the
possibility.
-- Bob G.
Mister Charlie
>
> Turning to his "private life maliciously smeared around after his
murder"...
> you do know Yoko Ono has an agenda too, don't you Derek? If you don't,
then
> you're clearly not viewing the situation objectively.
>
> Yoko's agenda is to maintain this image of John as important art
figure. She
> continues to find material not released for commercial consumption
that can
> be packaged for collections. She licenses John's image so that it will
be
> recognized.
As many heirs do after the death of an artist. It is neither rare nor
bad.
>
> Yoko does not want anyone speaking a view that runs contrary to her
own.
> Fred Seaman worked for John Lennon, and has the right to share his
> experiences with those interested in them. Is this smearing John's
personal
> life? No. It's an account, and one that will include some events that
don't
> match up with the 'established' narrative set out by Yoko.
Bullshit. Seaman is a lowly thief and liar. He wants to damage Yoko
and by extension John's reputation for having been fired and for not
being treated as highly as HE thought he should. He's dishonest beyond
belief, yet people lap up his Goldman recycled crap. And on top of it
he is personally an offensive asshole.
>
> John's personal life was equally smeared by himself; he and Yoko split
up a
> number of times in the seventies, and he had a romantic affair with
May
> Pang.
>
> Quite frankly, both May and Fred have been quite respectful in the way
they
> talk about John and Yoko and what they witnessed.
I haven't read May but I understand that is true; I have read Fred and
interacted with him here in this forum...ge, like Gulianno, is simple
garbage. As is his book.
>
> And when Lennon was alive, McCartney was honoured by the Guiness Book
of
> World Records with a Rhodium disc - something no other musician has
been
> awarded since for their sales achievement.
Yeah, that is prety cool....
>
> > Nonsense. You are out of your depth here.
> > Goldman's book is a proven fraud and smear-job.
>
> Proven by whom? The last I looked, a number of people are now treating
> Goldman as a book with decent research mired by too many errors -
errors
> which can only be found by contrasting it with other texts.
Bullshit again. His rabid playing with the truth has been shown to be
pure lying. He claims to have interviewed many who came forward and
said he NEVER talked to them...their quotes were fabricated. He made up
all his own thoughts to put in John's head and put words in John's
mouth. Goldman wanted and got attention and money...that's all he was
after. His book isn't worth wiping one's ass on.
.
> What did these employees do?
>
> > More importantly, he fabricated references, warped and
> > altered what they had said (confirmed in Dr. John's book),
> > and bribed people he interviewed with meals and drinks
> > for "dirt on Lennon".
>
> It's not bribing, it's called working a source.
LOFL!!! Good one!
>
> > This man clearly was not seeking
> > an objective portrait of John Lennon - it was a
> > one-sideid, exaggerated, cartoon-like, character-assassination-job
> > from start to finish .. devoid of the insights, sharp humor,
> > positive ideals, desire for public debate on social issues,
warmth,
> > charmisma, wit, energy, and intelligent brooding, questioning,
> > and aggression that marked his personality (as exemplified
> > by his work, charitable causes, interviews, etc.).
>
> You don't read many biographies, do you? I can't think of a single
biography
> that does all that -- not on John, not on anyone. Real people are
> complicated. Biographies try to make it simple to understand.
Bio's are almost all I read. And for once I have to (reluctantly) agree
with derek. He characterizes Goldman and his book quite well.
Rich Diakun
responded, how many times they responded, who the target audience of the
polls was, etc.
"Brian Fried" <comi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kMOG8.37679$y17.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Mister Charlie
"Rich Diakun" <URDE...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:eciH8.1721$Ly1.89...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
> Problem is... polls are pretty much meaningless. They are skewed by
who
> responded, how many times they responded, who the target audience of
the
> polls was, etc.
Kind of what I thought.
Danny Caccavo
<swam...@lycos.com> wrote:
> I haven't read May but I understand that is true; I have read Fred and
> interacted with him here in this forum...ge, like Gulianno, is simple
> garbage. As is his book.
I agree that Fred is frequently out of order here - though no more out
of order than some of this critics. But his book? Quite "in order".
Every time his name comes up, the best you can come up with is "lowly
thief, liar, scum, asshole". You never talk about specifics in his book
that you disagree with, and why. It certainly doesn't make you MORE
credible than Fred.
And yes, despite the fact that Fred is a reactive asshole here much of
the time, much of what he says about J&Y is credible to me.
Frannie
>
> And yes, despite the fact that Fred is a reactive asshole here much of
> the time, much of what he says about J&Y is credible to me.
>
> dc
That's sad. Neither of them was *ever* as venal as Fred portrays them
(although most of what he says about them betrays his own venality).
Francie
Mister Charlie
"Danny Caccavo" <dcac...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:dcaccavo-365512...@news-server.nyc.rr.com...
> <swam...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
> > I haven't read May but I understand that is true; I have read Fred
and
> > interacted with him here in this forum...ge, like Gulianno, is
simple
> > garbage. As is his book.
>
> I agree that Fred is frequently out of order here - though no more out
> of order than some of this critics. But his book? Quite "in order".
Not at all.
>
> Every time his name comes up, the best you can come up with is "lowly
> thief, liar, scum, asshole". You never talk about specifics in his
book
> that you disagree with, and why. It certainly doesn't make you MORE
> credible than Fred.
I have in the past gone to some of the things I disagree with. I don't
have to be more credible,however, I am not hawking a book purporting to
tell the truth.
>
> And yes, despite the fact that Fred is a reactive asshole here much of
> the time, much of what he says about J&Y is credible to me.
Then I feel sorry for you. What more can I say? I agree Fred reacts to
the attacks from others (like me) and I don't particularly care much
about that. It's mostly all about the book. And his behaviour and lies
after and around John's death.
We've always disagreed about this aspect and always will.
Brian Fried
> As many heirs do after the death of an artist. It is neither rare nor
> bad.
I'm not adding a value judgement on it (rare, bad, whatever); I wanted to
point out to Derek that everyone has an agenda when speaking about
themselves or others, whether it's consciously directed or not. Yoko has
one, as do her former employees -- neither has a 100% claim to the absolute
truth, just as NEITHER John NOR Paul have a 100% claim to the truth about
the Beatles. Truth always somewhere in the middle, wherever we may perceive
that to be.
> Bullshit. Seaman is a lowly thief and liar. He wants to damage Yoko
> and by extension John's reputation for having been fired and for not
> being treated as highly as HE thought he should. He's dishonest beyond
> belief, yet people lap up his Goldman recycled crap. And on top of it
> he is personally an offensive asshole.
I haven't met him personally, so I can't comment on that. But I have found
his posts in rmbm at least try to be fair. There's also a clear affection
for John Lennon and his music from Fred, something which others (ie. Frannie
and her opinions of Paul) don't seem to bring to the front as often.
His book may exaggerate a number of details (I agree with Frannie that John
and Yoko were probably not as bad as demonstrated in the book) but I
seriously doubt they were all hugs and kisses as Yoko would like us to
believe either.
> I haven't read May but I understand that is true; I have read Fred and
> interacted with him here in this forum...ge, like Gulianno, is simple
> garbage. As is his book.
Guillano's book about Paul comes from Denny Laine and his ex-wife's
comments. Note that a detailed reading of Blackbird reveals the dismissal of
every other member of Wings who has nothing but good things to say about
their ex-boss. Guillano wants to show all the faults in Paul and little of
the good -- definitely a bias, but certainly some of what Denny says (ie.
the squalor of the farm in Scotland) is based in fact.
> Bio's are almost all I read. And for once I have to (reluctantly) agree
> with derek. He characterizes Goldman and his book quite well.
It's been a long time since I read Goldman. I remember dismissing most of it
as crap, but there were a handful of interesting points at the time. Unlike
Derek, who's dedicated his attention to John, I've looked more at Paul and
the biographies written about him. I rate Goldman like I do Guillano:
clearly an agenda was set in writing this book, but some of what was said
was not complete fiction. Some -- not a lot by any standard.
Mister Charlie
As I have said in the past, burying a few gold nuggets in a pile of dung
makes the dung more attractive to some ("but look, there's gold in
there!") which is how some biographers write. I have never said that
every word in any of these books is false. The problem comes when
trying to figure out where the gold (truth) is.
That said, your take on it is pretty correct...the truth is not
exclusive to any of the participants, it will be somewhere in the
middle. (Of course each of the authors...and even Paul and Yoko
themselves...claim that THEIR version is the truth. Which is untrue.
Although certainly Yoko and Paul were there, putting them ahaead of the
vulture author pack.)
>
>
dlarsson
> >>
> >> Saint, no. Martyr, yes.
> >
> > If Lennon is the "Martyr" .. than why is it not he
> > but instead McCartney who is the guy who was
> > officially "Knighted" and is treated like royalty
> > by everyone -?
>
> Because he's dead.
You just contradicted your own premise.
You can't have it both ways.
1. Your original claim was that Lennon was deified
or made a "Martyr" because he was dead.
2. Your revised claim is that the reason McCartney
was the one who was "Knighted" and treated like royalty
(and never at any time Lennon) .. was because John was dead.
So which is it? ... Lennon can't simultaneously
be "passed over" when the honors are given out
and also be the "Martyred one."
Again, this disproves the whole "Saint"/"Martyr"
nonsense.
Lennon was always a polarizing figure .. never
treated "nicely" either when he was alive or in death
(the man was also murderd .. a clue right there).
Yet, Lennon was always recognized as the most significant
Beatle's musician & songwriter ... both while he was
alive and after his murder - which he deserved (and
wore the battle scars to prove it).
> > I think: Happy Christmas,
>
> "Stewball" is a traditional song.
"Stewball" just repeats the same 4 chords over and over.
"Happy Christmas" has an identicle 1st verse ... but goes on
from that point to be a whole different arrangement, with
different chords, melody lines added, counter-melodies
("war is over if you want it"), original orchestration,
change in key, etc.
The comparison doesn't hold up.
These are not the "same" songs.
> > I don't think Paul ever equaled the elegance
> > and beauty of "Imagine" or "Grow Old With Me" or "Beautiful Boy".
>
> That's because you haven't heard "Hear Today", to name but one
> example.
I have heard this song, I don't regard it as one
of his stronger efforts. "Wonderlust" (from the
same album) is a far better melody.
> > Given a career shortened by fear (U.S. Gov. intelligence survelliance),
> > a re-committment to family (Sean), and murder ... Lennon acheived
> > far more on a cultural and influence level with his music than McCartney
> > did with his plethora of silly love songs and marketing campaigns.
> >> Artistic goals: John's artistic goal in the seventies was to put his
> >> personal pain into music; Paul's artistic goal in the seventies was to
> >> prove he could do it again, that it wasn't a fluke. Both succeeded.
> > I think the Nixon adminstration was worried about different
> > "aritistic goals" from Lennon ... than "his pain"
> > (see the book: Come Together by Jon Weiner).
> >
> > Lennon's plan was for a 1972 year-long "Woodstock-style"
> > rock supergroup force to peacefully promote voter
> > registration for 18-year-olds (a first for the 1972 elections)
> > and, specifically, to get Nixon out of office, and to
> > end the Vietnam War.
> > Had the U.S. Gov. not shut down Lennon's political activism,
> > Lennon's "rock against Nixon" supergroup efforts may have
> > created a level of gravity and influence for Rock music
> > that exceeded the Beatles phenomena in both significance and
> > social change.
> If all that is true - which I hesitate to believe - it just disproves
> your thesis, namely that Lennon achieved a lot.
No, quite the opposite.
In shows just how powerful an influence Lennon actually was.
Would the U.S. gov. give a damn about "controlling" McCartney's work?
It also shows that government intimidation & abuse was
required to .. deny Lennon the full potential of his work.
In spite of this, Lennon's music has been used as a thematic
keynote at the United Nations and Roman Amphitheatre and
other internnational forums and remains meaningful
inspiration 20 years after his death.
- Derek
Rich Forman
>
> His so-called "classical" music was, unlike Billy Joel's
> recent album, nothing more than material that was
> scored out and worked up by a hired orchestra conductor.
> Paul himself neither created any "classical" or
> other unusual musical concepts .. nor performed
> any such "classical" music.
>
It is really tiring reading this same rant from you pretty much word
for word year after year, Derek. But anyway, can't you ever admit you
were wrong on a specific point? It is this one, and you have been
corrected on it before. You are wrong: McCartney composed the music
to his symphonic and classical works. "Scored out" is a vague,
slangish sounding phrase you have made up (and "worked up" is
meaningless, signifying nothing at all) - your phrase "scored out and
worked up" can be much more accurately and specifically replaced with
either "scored" or "transcribed." But Paul wrote the music, the
melodies. It shows your stubborn lack of objectivity on this whole
matter, that you refuse to give him credit for his actual
accomplishments like this one, whatever else you find his failings to
be. He really wrote this music (by and large it has been critically
panned - I haven't listened to it, and don't really care that much
for classical music in general) - it happened - like it or not.
Whether or not his efforts were aesthetically successful, it does
point to his desire to experiment, to branch out and challenge himself
in other musical and artistic directions.
We can't know for sure, but my suspsicion is that John never would
have attempted anything like this kind of music. I am going by his
many statements that he was mainly just interested in simple, pure,
straight rock'n'roll. (The vast majority of his post-Beatles work
bears this out, although, for my money, his ex-partner's entries in
this category, on average, in fact in and out of the Beatles, rock way
harder.)
richforman
Rich Forman
> "dlarsson" <derek_...@3com.com> wrote in message
>
> > I don't think Paul ever equaled the elegance
> > and beauty of "Imagine" or "Grow Old With Me" or "Beautiful Boy".
>
> That's subjective. McCartney lyrics with elegance and beauty? Off the top of
> my head I offer "Warm And Beautiful," "Somedays," "From A Lover To A
> Friend," "Junk," "Some People Never Know," "Winter Rose/Love Awake," "Treat
> Her Gently/Lonely Old People," "Footprints," "Dress Me Up As A Robber,"
> "Distractions" and "Mistress And Maid."
>
Fantastic list of choices, Brian (I like the way your list spans from
the onset of Paul's solo career to the present day - "Junk" and "From
a Lover" are both truly exceptional and highly interesting in my
book). Hey Derek, would you concede that ANY of these are
extraordinary, noteworthy songs, as elegant, innovative beautiful,
emotionally and musically rich, as anything Lennon or Lennon/McCartney
wrote, or at least that some of them have real merit and depth beyond
being "ordinary common pop tunes"? (And if not, you should at least
inwardly consider that it could be an anti-McCartney bias on your part
that prevents you from hearing them this way.)
BTW Brian - you left a couple of my favorites that I think really
rate a place on your list of gems - "The Lovers that Never Were" (for
the MUSIC mainly - incredible), and "Little Willow" - actually Paul
should consider bringing some of these types of songs more into the
spotlight if he's trying to shore up his reputation.
richforman
Brian Fried
> rate a place on your list of gems - "The Lovers that Never Were" (for
> the MUSIC mainly - incredible), and "Little Willow" - actually Paul
> should consider bringing some of these types of songs more into the
> spotlight if he's trying to shore up his reputation.
I was in a hurry. Both of those would make my list, as would a few others
(such as "Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey" and "Mull of Kintyre" for music). But
we can both agree, Rich, that there's a significant number of gems in the
McCartney solo years as well. :)
Brian Fried
> So which is it? ... Lennon can't simultaneously
> be "passed over" when the honors are given out
> and also be the "Martyred one."
>
> Again, this disproves the whole "Saint"/"Martyr"
> nonsense.
All it disproves is your ability to comprehend what you are reading.
Martyrs are those killed for their beliefs and thus become symbols for
others to continue fighting for those beliefs. The most prominent martyrs in
history are Christian ones (thanks, in much part, to the dominance of
Christianity in the Western world). Jesus was the original martyr.
Sainthood is awarded by the Catholic Church, for one or both of two
criteria: (a) martyr for one's beliefs, or (b) the performance of three
miracles. Obviously, you have to be dead to be a martyr; living saints who
perform three miracles recognized by the Church while they are alive are
very very few in number.
Knighthood, in contrast, is awarded by the monarch of the country in
question. At present, we're talking about HRH Queen Elizabeth II of England.
She bestows the rank of knighthood (dame to a woman) to the recepient at the
suggestion of her prime minister (whoever it may be at the time). The rule
of knighthood is that the recepient should have done something significant
for the nation -- often knighted were soldiers who performed extremely well
on the battlefield or politicians who have done important work in their
term(s) in office. A knighthood only lasts as long as you are alive.
Many view John to be a martyr because they belief it is John's beliefs which
attracted him to Mark David Chapman.
John cannot receive a knighthood because he is dead, but Paul can because he
is alive. Incidentally, even if John were alive today and received the
knighthood with Paul, he could not use the title of "Sir" fully because it
is not recognized as an official title by the United States (and John was an
American by 1980!).
> Yet, Lennon was always recognized as the most significant
> Beatle's musician & songwriter ...
Disagree with you there, Derek. John was certainly recognized as the leader
and the dominant songwriter in their formative period, but you rarely hear
other musicians recognize him as the most significant musician. If you
believe that John was both, you clearly don't recognize the John:
lyrics/Paul: music dichotomy that's often referred to, right?
> In shows just how powerful an influence Lennon actually was.
The US government did not prevent Lennon from releasing anything. Therefore,
they had no influence on his work.
> Would the U.S. gov. give a damn about "controlling" McCartney's work?
The US government has not controlled any musician's work other than to
establish censureship guidelines to protect children from foul language.
This has effected Paul more than John: MTV chose not to air the performance
of "Big Boys Bickering" for the Up Close television special because the song
repeatedly uses the word "fucking."
> It also shows that government intimidation & abuse was
> required to .. deny Lennon the full potential of his work.
How?? Have you have any proof that they physically or verbally intimidated
or abused Lennon that none of us have seen?
The FBI watched him and took notes. Period.
It was concluded that Lennon did not deserve permanent residence status.
Period.
Neither constitutes harassment, intimidation or abuse. (Wings were nearly
denied entry into the US due to McCartney's arrest for marijuana possession,
which was worse than anything John had done at the time in the eyes of the
US immigration service - John was never threatened with a potential lack of
entry.)
If you're suggestion that Lennon was intimidated into not following his idea
of a 1972 peaceful protest, I think you're underestimating Lennon's own
power of conviction.
> In spite of this, Lennon's music has been used as a thematic
> keynote at the United Nations and Roman Amphitheatre and
> other internnational forums and remains meaningful
> inspiration 20 years after his death.
The Roman Amphitheatre ceased active function a millenium ago. It's a relic.
The United Nations adopted "Give Peace A Chance" as an anthem. Given that
they have no real political power whatsoever, it doesn't add up to much.
Even then, it is the song which has been adopted - not John himself as a
figurehead.
Frannie
> "Brian Fried" <comi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<vleH8.17703$Hf4.2...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
> > "dlarsson" <derek_...@3com.com> wrote in message
>
> >
> > > I don't think Paul ever equaled the elegance
> > > and beauty of "Imagine" or "Grow Old With Me" or "Beautiful Boy".
> >
> > That's subjective. McCartney lyrics with elegance and beauty? Off the top of
> > my head I offer "Warm And Beautiful," "Somedays," "From A Lover To A
> > Friend," "Junk," "Some People Never Know," "Winter Rose/Love Awake," "Treat
> > Her Gently/Lonely Old People," "Footprints," "Dress Me Up As A Robber,"
> > "Distractions" and "Mistress And Maid."
> >
>
> inwardly consider that it could be an anti-McCartney bias on your part
> that prevents you from hearing them this way.)
>
Jeez, Rich, do you really think it's necessary to add this disclaimer
whenever you're addressing someone who may not hold McCartney's entire
oeuvre in as high regard as you do?
Sometimes the songs just sound mediocre. Period.
Talk about finding bias in every corner...
:-)
Francie
The world is full of cactus, but
we don't have to sit on it.
~ Will Foley ~
Herb OBrien
at a Time? Will it take Paul's dying for people to see the "elegance and
beauty" of "I'm Carrying" or "Here Today" or "Little Lamb Dragon Fly." If
you choose to be deaf to McCartney's talents, try another newsgroup.
Bob Gill
> Martyrs are those killed for their beliefs and thus become symbols for
> others to continue fighting for those beliefs. The most prominent martyrs in
> history are Christian ones (thanks, in much part, to the dominance of
> Christianity in the Western world). Jesus was the original martyr.
Just to change the subject to a more interesting topic: I think Socrates was
actually the first we know of who was killed for spreading what the government
believed were dangerous ideas, and refusing to recant. So he's the first martyr,
and Plato was his St. Paul.
-- Bob G.
Danny Caccavo
<swam...@lycos.com> wrote:
> Not at all.
OK, what about Fred's book do you think is "out of order"? (other than
the intro and outro).
> >
> > Every time his name comes up, the best you can come up with is "lowly
> > thief, liar, scum, asshole". You never talk about specifics in his
> book
> > that you disagree with, and why. It certainly doesn't make you MORE
> > credible than Fred.
>
> I have in the past gone to some of the things I disagree with. I don't
> have to be more credible,however, I am not hawking a book purporting to
> tell the truth.
Of course you don't *have* to be credible. I would just think that
you'd *want* to be.
> >
> > And yes, despite the fact that Fred is a reactive asshole here much of
> > the time, much of what he says about J&Y is credible to me.
>
> Then I feel sorry for you. What more can I say? I agree Fred reacts to
> the attacks from others (like me) and I don't particularly care much
> about that. It's mostly all about the book. And his behaviour and lies
> after and around John's death.
>
> We've always disagreed about this aspect and always will.
OK. But no need to feel sorry for me.
Mister Charlie
Rich Diakun
recent album, nothing more than material that was scored out and worked up
by a hired orchestra conductor. Paul himself neither created any
"classical" or other unusual musical concepts .. nor performed any such
"classical" music.>>
Au contraire, Derek. I do remember seeing a story on CNN or something that
covered Paul creating "Standing Stone", and it clearly showed him going
through the process of creating the themes and their various expositions,
episodes and resolutions, by using a very nice MIDI keyboard setup. This
relieved him of most of his need to have someone who could write out scores
to translate the ideas in his head to paper. The software did it, and Paul
played out the parts. Then, he went back, fixed parts, filled in parts, ad
nauseum, until he got it how he wanted it. In case you've never done
composition work on a MIDI setup (trust me... I do, so I know what I'm
squawking about), it is one of the most wonderful things that has happened
to writing music since some lazy composer decided that using the tenor clef
was a pain in the butt. It allows the composer to not only hear something
in his head that he wants to write, but to be able to clearly and accurately
reproduce (and enhance) his mind's vision with speed and ease. OK, so Paul
"tecnhically" can't read or write music, at least insofar as the calligraphy
and transcription parts of using those cute little coded symbols with dots
and bars and such are concerned, but he sure was able to make the wondrous
leap from "inside his head" to "on the paper" when he worked up "Standing
Stone."
- Rich
CareyY
was not taken from Him.
See John 10:15-18
CareyY
"Bob Gill" <bob...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3CEEE215...@erols.com...
Danny Caccavo
Diakun" <URDE...@prodigy.net> wrote:
Amazingly enough, I'm agreeing with Derek here, though not in tone.
Arrangement is so much a part of composing. If Paul had wanted to write
"legit" classical, he should have gotten over his fear of learning to
read music and of music theory.
If you want to compare Billy Joel and Paul McCartney at this level,
there's no comparison. After all these years, Paul is still "shooting
from the hip" in terms of composition - and Billy Joel actually has a
technical understanding of composition, rather than just gut.
Though he migh have gut too - after all, he IS getting old...<G>
Frannie
> Again when is the last time you listened to John's Well Well Well or One Day
> at a Time? Will it take Paul's dying for people to see the "elegance and
> beauty" of "I'm Carrying" or "Here Today" or "Little Lamb Dragon Fly." If
> you choose to be deaf to McCartney's talents, try another newsgroup.
>
This is not a McCartney newsgroup.
If you can't handle people preferring John's or George's solo work to
Paul's, that's just tough.
Frannie
jbar
"Frannie" <franc...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:b8bebffe.02052...@posting.google.com...
On the contrary, it seems that it is YOU and Derek that can't handle people
preferring Paul's solo work to John's or George's, or at least pointing out
some of the great songs he has written over the years.
However, as already mentioned, musical preferences are subjective and
opinions about the merits of all the ex-Beatles music, including Paul's, is
appropriate for discussion here. It is a Beatles related topic, so what on
earth is your point here, other than to try to dictate discussion?
-Jan
Christian Henriksson
(dlarsson) sayeth thus:
>> >> > 1) No one, not even his fans or admirers, ever called John a "Saint".
>> >>
>> >> Saint, no. Martyr, yes.
>> >
>> > If Lennon is the "Martyr" .. than why is it not he
>> > but instead McCartney who is the guy who was
>> > officially "Knighted" and is treated like royalty
>> > by everyone -?
>>
>> Because he's dead.
>
>
> You just contradicted your own premise.
> You can't have it both ways.
>
> 1. Your original claim was that Lennon was deified
> or made a "Martyr" because he was dead.
>
> 2. Your revised claim is that the reason McCartney
> was the one who was "Knighted" and treated like royalty
> (and never at any time Lennon) .. was because John was dead.
You might wanna check whom you're responding to. No wonder no one
listens to what you say.
> So which is it? ... Lennon can't simultaneously
> be "passed over" when the honors are given out
> and also be the "Martyred one."
>
> Again, this disproves the whole "Saint"/"Martyr"
> nonsense.
A knight is not a saint is not a martyr.
>> > I think: Happy Christmas,
>>
>> "Stewball" is a traditional song.
>
> "Stewball" just repeats the same 4 chords over and over.
> "Happy Christmas" has an identicle 1st verse ... but goes on
> from that point to be a whole different arrangement, with
> different chords, melody lines added, counter-melodies
> ("war is over if you want it"), original orchestration,
> change in key, etc.
>
> The comparison doesn't hold up.
> These are not the "same" songs.
Are you aware that many covers try to adapt a song and make it a
little different?
And you may have heard of the Verve's "Bittersweet Symphony", which
has a co-credit to Jagger/Richard because it samples the strings from
the Andrew Oldham produced instrumental version of "The Last Time".
That credit is much less deserved than the one not credited on "Happy
X-mas".
>> > I don't think Paul ever equaled the elegance
>> > and beauty of "Imagine" or "Grow Old With Me" or "Beautiful Boy".
>>
>> That's because you haven't heard "Hear Today", to name but one
>> example.
>
> I have heard this song, I don't regard it as one
> of his stronger efforts. "Wonderlust" (from the
> same album) is a far better melody.
I agree. ("Wanderlust", by the way.)
>> > Given a career shortened by fear (U.S. Gov. intelligence survelliance),
>> > a re-committment to family (Sean), and murder ... Lennon acheived
>> > far more on a cultural and influence level with his music than McCartney
>> > did with his plethora of silly love songs and marketing campaigns.
>
>> >> Artistic goals: John's artistic goal in the seventies was to put his
>> >> personal pain into music; Paul's artistic goal in the seventies was to
>> >> prove he could do it again, that it wasn't a fluke. Both succeeded.
>
>> > I think the Nixon adminstration was worried about different
>> > "aritistic goals" from Lennon ... than "his pain"
>> > (see the book: Come Together by Jon Weiner).
>> >
>> > Lennon's plan was for a 1972 year-long "Woodstock-style"
>> > rock supergroup force to peacefully promote voter
>> > registration for 18-year-olds (a first for the 1972 elections)
>> > and, specifically, to get Nixon out of office, and to
>> > end the Vietnam War.
>> > Had the U.S. Gov. not shut down Lennon's political activism,
>> > Lennon's "rock against Nixon" supergroup efforts may have
>> > created a level of gravity and influence for Rock music
>> > that exceeded the Beatles phenomena in both significance and
>> > social change.
>
>> If all that is true - which I hesitate to believe - it just disproves
>> your thesis, namely that Lennon achieved a lot.
>
> No, quite the opposite.
Not at all. You say Lennon tried to get a supergroup going. He didn't
succeed.
Christian Henriksson
(che...@tiscali.se)
--
"The big danger isn't the evil of evil people;
it's the silence of good people."
Rich Diakun
The original post was only to the McCartney newsgroups. I'm sorry that some
folks insist on cross-posting to rmb. Personally, I try to stay away from
rmb as much as possible, since it tends to sink to the level of name-calling
and less constructive discussion than do the
rec.music.artists.paul-mccartney and alt.music.mccartney. I'm guessing that
Herb probably read this thread in one of those newsgroups, as opposed to the
excuricating task of dealing with all of the garbage that routinely fills up
rmb to excess.
- Rich
Rich Forman
> rfor...@optonline.net (Rich Forman) wrote in message news:<f354f363.0205...@posting.google.com>...
> > "Brian Fried" <comi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<vleH8.17703$Hf4.2...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
> > > "dlarsson" <derek_...@3com.com> wrote in message
>
> > >
> > > > I don't think Paul ever equaled the elegance
> > > > and beauty of "Imagine" or "Grow Old With Me" or "Beautiful Boy".
> > >
> > > That's subjective. McCartney lyrics with elegance and beauty? Off the top > > > of my head I offer "Warm And Beautiful," "Somedays," "From A Lover To A
> > > Friend," "Junk," "Some People Never Know," "Winter Rose/Love
> > > Awake," "Treat Her Gently/Lonely Old People," "Footprints," "Dress Me Up > > > As A Robber," "Distractions" and "Mistress And Maid."
> > >
> >
> > (And if not, you should at least
> > inwardly consider that it could be an anti-McCartney bias on your part
> > that prevents you from hearing them this way.)
> >
>
> Jeez, Rich, do you really think it's necessary to add this disclaimer
> whenever you're addressing someone who may not hold McCartney's entire
> oeuvre in as high regard as you do?
>
I don't, not even close, I swear! I can't stand much of "Wild Life",
"McCartney II", "Ram" (sorry Ian!), "Tug of War" (sorry almost
everybody!), "Pipes of Peace" and the IMO highly overrated "Flaming
Pie"!
That said, what do you mean, "whenever you're addressing someone..." I
was specifically asking Derek and asking a specific question that I
still think is valid. Sorry, but I DO detect (and it doesn't take
Sherlock Holmes!) an anti-Paul bias in his statements - that seems
like a laughable understatement as I write it, in fact. He's the one
who said basically that NONE of Paul's solo output displays any real
merit, honesty, elegance, worth, innovation, sophistication or depth.
I didn't say ALL of it does, but I used a logically valid arguing
technique by citing SOME which I think arguably DO.
richforman
> Sometimes the songs just sound mediocre. Period.
>
Absoultely. Often worse than that!
> Talk about finding bias in every corner...
>
What did I say here that shows bias? All I said was that a lot of
Paul's songs are really good. (Doesn't really seem like that
controversial a statement.)I've got you this time. Your criticism of
me right here doesn't seem to hold water.
richforman
Rich Forman
He didn't say anything like that! You're LOSING it in this thread, Francie!
richforman
> Frannie
Frannie
Rich, dear. READ the quote. I put it politely. Some people find
Paul's solo work mediocre, especially when compared with John's and
George's. Doesn't mean they "choose to be deaf to McCartney's
talents." Which is EXACTLY what he said.
I'm not losing it. But I think you jumped the gun here.
dlarsson
> > be "passed over" when the honors are given out
> > and also be the "Martyred one."
> >
> > Again, this disproves the whole "Saint"/"Martyr"
> > nonsense.
> Martyrs are those killed for their beliefs and thus become symbols for
> Sainthood is awarded by the Catholic Church, for one or both of two
> Knighthood, in contrast, is awarded by the monarch of the country in
> John cannot receive a knighthood because he is dead, but Paul can
I think you are hung up are literal, fine, semantics here
and missed the big picture.
This belly-aching about Lennon being a "Saint" and a "Martyr"
has little releationship to strick "definitions".
The contention always made is that Lennon has been "elevated"
-not- by his accomplishments .. but simply by his death.
But how can a man who was recognized with a "Man of the Decade"
distinction while he was alive (at 30 years old) and recognized
as the Beatles leader (by the band label's own PR) and most
brilliant member suddenly be "less than" this after his death?
Clearly, as the Albert Goldman book shows, Lennon has been
unfairly pilloried after his death .. not even
positively recognized .. much less "deified".
McCartney, on the other hand, has been awarded and
tributed at every turn in a way that he never was
during the 1970s .. ever since Lennon's death.
So the whole premise is not borne out by the facts.
McCartney has never "had it" so good .. meanwhile
Lennon's pivotal role in the band has been
lost or obfuscated by endless retellings of
band history by others [read: McCartney & PR friends]
and his personal life has been bashed in a
malicious way like no other entertainment figure
I can think of.
> > Yet, Lennon was always recognized as the most significant
> > Beatle's musician & songwriter ...
>
> Disagree with you there, Derek. John was certainly recognized as the leader
> and the dominant songwriter in their formative period, but you rarely hear
> other musicians recognize him as the most significant musician. If you
> believe that John was both, you clearly don't recognize the John:
> lyrics/Paul: music dichotomy that's often referred to, right?
I'm sorry is the music to: "Because"
somehow inferior to "Let It Be" (or whatever) -?
How come Lennon's songs employ more complex chord changes
("I Want You/She's So Heavy") and involve more intricate
harmonic relationships ("If I Fell", "Girl") .. and creative
rythmns .. than McCartney's straightforward diatonic
("do re mi fa so la ti da") style of music -?
And wasn't it Lennon who created the band's psychedelic
masterpeices such as "Strawberry Fields Forever",
"All You Need Is Love", "Lucy In the Sky With Diamonds",
"I Am The Walrus" -? Are these somehow musically inferior
to McCartney's "Hello Goodbye" or 4-chord hit "Hey Jude"
(or whatever) -? I think not.
Note: as a player, Lennon employed travis fingerpicking
("Dear Prudence", "Julia", "Out the Blue") something
that McCartney never did as a guitarist, played
slide guitar ("John Sinclair", "For You Blue"), and
while noted for his rythmn playing .. was often overlooked
as a soloist: ("Revolution", "You Can't Do That",
"Hey Bulldog", "Ballad of John & Yoko",
"I Want You/She's So Heavy", "Honey Pie",
"I Feel Fine", "Get Back", etc.).
True McCartney's affinity with ballads and softer music
have made people regard him as very "musical".
But the most brilliant & original music typically
was coming from Lennon (some exceptions granted)
and I don't think McCartney ever matched the
elegance and beauty of Lennon's solo classics
like: "Imagine", "Beautiful Boy", "Happy Christmas",
"Grow Old With Me" after the Beatles.
> The US government did not prevent Lennon from releasing anything. Therefore,
> they had no influence on his work.
Excuse me ... the deportation actions against him and surveiliance
abuse forced him to cancel his 1972 supergroup tour.
He had to fight deportation .. because Yoko would lose
her legal rights to her (kidnapped) daughter Kyoko if she
left the country and if only he left .. she would lose
her husband. That is not only stopping Lennon's work
it was also breaking up their family.
> The US government has not controlled any musician's work other than to
> establish censureship
Read Jon Wiener's book "Come Together" - before you
dismiss the U.S. governments impact on John Lennon's
artistic and music plans.
> It was concluded that Lennon did not deserve permanent residence status.
> Period.
And this was not selective treatment?
Please read the book "Come Together" (which covers this history)
> If you're suggestion that Lennon was intimidated into not following his idea
> of a 1972 peaceful protest, I think you're underestimating Lennon's own
> power of conviction.
He was being thrown out of the country.
But it was even worse than that. The FBI/CIA
were trying to 'plant' and set it up for
another drug bust. Lennon was targeted
for a multi-facited Republican "dirty tricks"
program. Here's a quote:
"Look if anything 'happens' to either me or Yoko
it was not an accident!"
-John Lennon, 1972
> The Roman Amphitheatre ceased active function a millenium ago. It's a relic.
A recent news story involved "Imagine" and the Amphitheatre
but I don't know the exact details (although they may be posted here).
> The United Nations adopted "Give Peace A Chance" as an anthem.
Yoko Ono was also invited several years ago to a cerimony where
they played "Imagine".
> Even then, it is the song which has been adopted - not John himself as a
> figurehead.
Exactly ... his work.
Thus, it is John's work that made him what he was ...
not his death.
- Derek
Brian Fried
> The contention always made is that Lennon has been "elevated"
> -not- by his accomplishments .. but simply by his death.
> But how can a man who was recognized with a "Man of the Decade"
> distinction while he was alive (at 30 years old) and recognized
> as the Beatles leader (by the band label's own PR) and most
> brilliant member suddenly be "less than" this after his death?
It's not a question of Lennon being "less than," Derek, it's a question of
Lennon being "more than" -- as in "Lennon was more than the Beatles ever
was, while McCartney, Harrison and Starr were absolute nothings." The
complaint from Paul is that he was there and an equal contributor in it
until the end, so why isn't be recognized for it?
> McCartney, on the other hand, has been awarded and
> tributed at every turn in a way that he never was
> during the 1970s .. ever since Lennon's death.
How celebrated has he really been? He received the lifetime achievement
awards in 1986/7 at a point where his album Press To Play had been a
tremendous failure and he was contemplating quitting music altogether. He
was snubbed by the so-called Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame. MTV doesn't play
his stuff in regular rotation (nor VH1 from what I've heard). He isn't
receiving any promotion from EMI... most people barely recognize how much
he's released in recent years.
> McCartney has never "had it" so good ..
Wings were a spectacular success; Lennon's material in the seventies was
poorly recieved by the public.
Compare the material in the seventies to the eighties and nineties, and
McCartney had it much better then than now, particularly when it comes to
reference to the Beatles.
> meanwhile
> Lennon's pivotal role in the band has been
> lost or obfuscated by endless retellings of
> band history by others [read: McCartney & PR friends]
Read Anthology. Lennon himself admits he wasn't the only one with a pivotal
role in the band -- Paul had one, George had one, Ringo had one, Brian had
one, George Martin had one...
Contrary to your - and some critics' - opinion, Lennon was the not the total
sum of the Beatles.
> and his personal life has been bashed in a
> malicious way like no other entertainment figure
> I can think of.
Marilyn Munroe? Kurt Cobain?
> I'm sorry is the music to: "Because"
> somehow inferior to "Let It Be" (or whatever) -?
It's not a question of superiority vs inferiority. How many guitarists point
to Lennon as their primary influence and not Hendrix, Harrison, Page,
Clapton or Van Halen? In terms of recognition of musical ability, there's no
drummer out there who is not in awe of Ringo's natural skill behind the kit.
There are very few bass players out there who will not tell you that
McCartney's bass playing during the later Beatles period and beyond is not
an impressive feat. Lennon is admired by more young rockers today for his
lyrics and self-focused writing than for his guitar playing.
> How come Lennon's songs employ more complex chord changes
> ("I Want You/She's So Heavy") and involve more intricate
> harmonic relationships ("If I Fell", "Girl") .. and creative
> rythmns .. than McCartney's straightforward diatonic
> ("do re mi fa so la ti da") style of music -?
How come Lennon didn't use brass or strings? Each had their own interests:
Lennon admits in Anthology that he was prinicipally interested in the blues.
Anyone who's listened to the blues in significant quantity knows it is a lot
of chord progression. McCartney wasn't interested in the blues like John; he
was interested in the symphony and jazz, which is much more progressive in
its arrangement.
Lennon didn't write the harmonic relationships alone for those early pieces,
he wrote them with Paul. And note that you identify songs up to Rubber Soul;
by Lennon's own admission Paul was not pushing himself in those days like he
was, but when he did could write incredible songs.
Lennon also admits it is a falacy to think one did one thing and the other
another; Lennon did diatonic ballads and McCartney complex chord changes and
harmonic relationships as well.
> And wasn't it Lennon who created the band's psychedelic
> masterpeices such as "Strawberry Fields Forever",
> "All You Need Is Love", "Lucy In the Sky With Diamonds",
> "I Am The Walrus" -? Are these somehow musically inferior
> to McCartney's "Hello Goodbye" or 4-chord hit "Hey Jude"
> (or whatever) -? I think not.
I'm not claiming that it is, Derek. You are.
As for Lennon's dive into psychadelica, McCartney didn't stick to acid,
heroin or cocaine in the way John did. He, like George, expanded their minds
to a point where they didn't feel like going further.
> True McCartney's affinity with ballads and softer music
> have made people regard him as very "musical".
He's regarded as more musical by his use of instruments and variations in
musical genre. Classical, jazz, big band, traditional rock, blues, pop,
psychadelica, stadium rock, synthpop, punk, techno-trance -- there are very
few artists who have such a large range (Bowie being the obvious one).
Also, McCartney's songs are more easily translatable to other instruments;
Lennon's solo works, other than "Imagine," are very rarely translated into
strings the way McCartney's are.
> But the most brilliant & original music typically
> was coming from Lennon (some exceptions granted)
Many exceptions.
> and I don't think McCartney ever matched the
> elegance and beauty of Lennon's solo classics
> like: "Imagine", "Beautiful Boy", "Happy Christmas",
> "Grow Old With Me" after the Beatles.
The key word being "I". That's YOUR opinion, Derek. Not everyone has to
agree with you (and the fact this is being posted in both McCartney
newsgroups should emphasize the point that you've clearly got opposition on
that front).
> Read Jon Wiener's book "Come Together" - before you
> dismiss the U.S. governments impact on John Lennon's
> artistic and music plans.
I've read it. Wiener comes up with a nice theory, but I think he - like many
of his generation - is overly interested in their anti-Nixon/anti-Vietnam
agenda to be considered "balanced." There are many who would like to believe
that John, or some other cultural figure, could have rallied the people to
stop Vietnam and the Nixon administration, but that's a complete falacy --
the situation was more complex, and much of the social activism of the late
sixties was evaporating by the early seventies and being replaced with
different concerns.
> And this was not selective treatment?
It was a logical treatment. Lennon espouced the values of communism and was
a known drug user. Combined, those prevented him permanent residence status
according to the rules of US immigration at the time, and the INS did their
jobs. He wasn't the only one denied permanent residence status -- to think
that is ludicrous.
Besides: if Nixon was really against music to promote peace, he would have
stood against Woodstock. If he was such a warmonger, he would have stayed in
Vietnam no matter what the cost. He didn't do either.
> "Look if anything 'happens' to either me or Yoko
> it was not an accident!"
> -John Lennon, 1972
Rock stars being "set up" for drug busts in the early seventies was not
uncommon. The veil of protection had disappeared, and rock stars could (and
probably did) pay fines rather than go to prison. There's also the anger at
the breakup of the Beatles still to be recognized in 1972.
> Yoko Ono was also invited several years ago to a cerimony where
> they played "Imagine".
World peace day or something. Again, the UN is a totally useless
organization politically. They can choose whatever anthem they want ("Give
peace a chance," "Imagine there's no countries, no religion too") and it
won't do a lick of difference.
> Exactly ... his work.
> Thus, it is John's work that made him what he was ...
> not his death.
It's not a question of what "made" him Derek. If you bother to go back to
the original article, the writer was noting that McCartney hasn't followed
the traditional notions of the artist, and the result is a guy who can still
rock with the best of them being ignored by critics too concerned with
celebrating those same traditional notions. John IS the traditional artist:
poor (to begin with), a fighter for the lower classes, a tortured soul, an
untimely death. Paul isn't: he married, had some kids, raised them in
private, stays out of the limelight, and so on.
ONLY in America do you have dead artists outselling live ones in poster
shops all across the country. And it's not your average dead ones, either:
it's Jim Morrison (mysterious death), Jimi Hendrix (drug overdose), Elvis
Presley (drug overdose), John Lennon (murdered). It's James Dean (traffic
accident) and Marilyn (drugs once more). It's a death culture. These dead
artists who die before their natural time are gurus to the American public
that think that it is "better to burn out than to fade away."
The dead can do no wrong. Their faults fade from memory. Elvis, for example,
had the early glory and the Vegas gigs, but nothing in between sticks with
the general memory of the American entertainment industry. Similarly Lennon
had the Beatles, Imagine, and then died -- it doesn't matter that he had
weak selling albums in the seventies.
Paul is still alive. He has faults, and the critics love(d) to use them
against him. One of those is that he projects an image of the "nice" guy.
Hence the point in the article.
Danny Caccavo
<comi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> McCartney wasn't interested in the blues like John
Yet he could sing bluesy more convincingly than John could....one
overlooked vocal is the outtake to "Can't Buy Me Love" (the shooby doo
one) -that is a very bluesy vocal - and the final vocal was quite
"sanitized" by comparison.
DC
dlarsson
> > -not- by his accomplishments .. but simply by his death.
> > But how can a man who was recognized with a "Man of the Decade"
> > distinction while he was alive (at 30 years old) and recognized
> > as the Beatles leader (by the band label's own PR) and most
> > brilliant member suddenly be "less than" this after his death?
>
> It's not a question of Lennon being "less than," Derek, it's a question of
> Lennon being "more than" -- as in "Lennon was more than the Beatles ever
> was, while McCartney, Harrison and Starr were absolute nothings."
Of course, no one (and no Lennon fans such as myself) has
ever said this statement (which you faslely accuse).
In fact, every eulogy about Lennon went out of its way
to avoid refering to Lennon as "the leader" of the band
and highlighted the partnership with McCartney. All
of the eulogies about Harrison have also identified
him as a strong and original creative force within the band.
So you are worried about something that never happened.
> > McCartney, on the other hand, has been awarded and
> > tributed at every turn in a way that he never was
> > during the 1970s .. ever since Lennon's death.
> How celebrated has he really been?
Well, for starters, he has been "Knighted".
In addition, he has received just about every award
known to mankind and tributed like royalty on every
TV appearnce he makes (with no one daring to ask
him "tough" questions about his work or his "history").
> his album Press To Play had been a
> tremendous failure and he was contemplating quitting music altogether.
So why is he given more awards then ... this proves my point.
> snubbed by the so-called Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame.
Actually, McCartney was the one who snubbed the R&R Hall
when he refused to appear with George,Ringo, & Yoko to
accept the Beatles nomination. He created the "riff"
and was inducted anyway a few years later
so it is silly to portray McCartney as a victim.
> Wings were a spectacular success;
They were roundly shelacked by the critics .. and when
songs like "Silly Love Songs" and "Let 'em In" - I
would hardly call them a "spectacular success" no matter
whether or not they charted. On an artistic level
this was a retreat to embarassing soft-lilly-white pap muzak
.. not material fit for "lifetime acheivement awards,
"Hall-of-Fame" and Knights.
> Lennon's material in the seventies was
> poorly recieved by the public.
Lennon had hit songs with: "Instant Karma",
"Give Peace A Chance", "Imagine",
"Whatever Gets You Throught The Knight", "Fame",
"#9 Dream", "Mind Games", etc.
His album sales were uneven .. but not without significant successes.
In any event, volume of sales ... and material success
has little to do with things like artistic value, originality,
cultural/social influence.
Songs like "Imagine" will live on long after Paul's
cheery "Silly Love Songs" fade into the "nothing special" bin
of history.
> > meanwhile
> > Lennon's pivotal role in the band has been
> > lost or obfuscated by endless retellings of
> > band history by others [read: McCartney & PR friends]
>
> Read Anthology. Lennon himself admits he wasn't the only one with a pivotal
> role in the band
That is not what I said (and just deflects the real issue).
McCartney (along with his PR people) has lied about
Beatles history to skew things around to make Lennon
appear far less significant than he was (and dress up
McCartney as being the "avant garde" guy who "did everything").
The point is ... if there was any "false" history about
the peoples - it was not introduced by eulogies about
Lennon - it was only introduced for the first time
with McCartney's own blatant self-glorifying revisionism.
> Contrary to your - and some critics' - opinion, Lennon was the not the total
> sum of the Beatles.
I have never said this (or anything close to this).
I have always said John,Paul,& George were
an irreplaceable unit. However, the Beatles
reached their artistic high points ... with
Lennon as the main songwriting/concept force
("Hard Day's Night", "Help", "Rubber Soul",
"Strawberry Fields -> "All You Need Is Love", etc.)
and always fell into mediocrity ("Magical Mystery Tour"
"Let It Be") when McCartney was the dominant force.
> > I'm sorry is the music to: "Because"
> > somehow inferior to "Let It Be" (or whatever) -?
>
> It's not a question of superiority vs inferiority. How many guitarists point
> to Lennon as their primary influence and not Hendrix, Harrison, Page,
> Clapton or Van Halen?
Lennon is regarded more in the same way as Keith Richards,
Chuck Berry, John Lee Hooker, Pete Townsend, or John Fogerty.
An important influence with respect to rythmn playing, riffs,
and 'style' as a player.
> > How come Lennon's songs employ more complex chord changes
> > ("I Want You/She's So Heavy") and involve more intricate
> > harmonic relationships ("If I Fell", "Girl") .. and creative
> > rythmns .. than McCartney's straightforward diatonic
> > ("do re mi fa so la ti da") style of music -?
>
> How come Lennon didn't use brass or strings?
I guess you have never heard: "I Am The Walrus",
"A Day In the Life", "#9 Dream", "Happy Christmas",
"How Do You Sleep", "Goodnight", "Strawberry Fields Forever",
"Glass Onion", "Revolution No 9".
> Lennon didn't write the harmonic relationships alone for those early pieces,
> he wrote them with Paul.
Things like "Girl", "If I Fell", "Because", "Julia", etc
were not 50-50 collaborations ... these were Lennon's
songs.
Note that virtually all of the 3-part harmony songs
"This Boy", "Yes It Is", "Help", "Nowhere Man",
"Because" "I'll Be Back" were Lennon songs - not
McCartney songs.
along with things harmonic tour-de-force's like: "If I Fell".
> Lennon also admits it is a falacy to think one did one thing and the other
> another; Lennon did diatonic ballads and McCartney complex chord changes and
> harmonic relationships as well.
Exceptions can be found .. but the general comment
remains accurate.
> > And wasn't it Lennon who created the band's psychedelic
> > masterpeices such as "Strawberry Fields Forever",
> > "All You Need Is Love", "Lucy In the Sky With Diamonds",
> > "I Am The Walrus" -? Are these somehow musically inferior
> > to McCartney's "Hello Goodbye" or 4-chord hit "Hey Jude"
> > (or whatever) -? I think not.
>
> I'm not claiming that it is, Derek.
Than there is little basis for the
so-called:
Lennon-Lyrics / McCartney-music
dichotomy.
The band's musical materpeices were written
and conceived by Lennon or those efforts
dominated by him.
The point is if you forget Lennon's lyrics
he was still a huge musical innovator and creator
in this band - and, in fact, exceeded McCartney
in terms of sheer brilliance and originality.
> > and I don't think McCartney ever matched the
> > elegance and beauty of Lennon's solo classics
> > like: "Imagine", "Beautiful Boy", "Happy Christmas",
> > "Grow Old With Me" after the Beatles.
>
> The key word being "I". That's YOUR opinion, Derek. Not everyone has to
> agree with you
Fine .. but take away Paul's constant re-peddeling
of old Beatles songs .. and what do you really have?
"Biker Like a Icon?" "Girl I Want It So Bad"?
"Another Day"? ... i mean .. you reap what you sow.
> > Read Jon Wiener's book "Come Together" - before you
> > dismiss the U.S. governments impact on John Lennon's
> > artistic and music plans.
>
> I've read it. Wiener comes up with a nice theory, but I think he - like many
> of his generation - is overly interested in their anti-Nixon/anti-Vietnam
> agenda to be considered "balanced." There are many who would like to believe
> that John, or some other cultural figure, could have rallied the people to
> stop Vietnam and the Nixon administration, but that's a complete falacy --
> the situation was more complex, and much of the social activism of the late
> sixties was evaporating by the early seventies and being replaced with
> different concerns.
I agree with part of what you said. However,
the fact remains - Lennon was the subject of
Republican criminal 'hardball' tactics which
did deny the destiny of John's artistic vision
and would have been a highlight of his career.
It might not have "changed the outcome" of
the election in 1972 - but, like "Woodstock"
it would have been a part of history that
he had put his stamp on - like the Beatles.
> > And this was not selective treatment?
> It was a logical treatment.
Nonsense - it was abusive - and not representative of a "free country"
> Lennon espouced the values of communism
Sorry, Lennon was not a "communist".
Furthermore, he broke no laws ... nor was
he at all violent or seeking anything other
than peaceful dissent. That was what
this country was supposed to be founded on.
Our "non-communist" U.S. Gov. was, meanwhile,
burning and bombing innocent civilians in Asia
every day in a genocidal way - with no purpose.
There was no "logic" to that.
> Besides: if Nixon was really against music to promote peace, he would have
> stood against Woodstock.
He did.
Woodstock was almost shut down by the Republican Governor
but they body count there was so large .. it would have
required tear gas and a huge public relations problem
(and possible injurt or death).
> If he was such a warmonger, he would have stayed in
> Vietnam no matter what the cost.
He did.
After promising that "peace was at hand"
he initiated the biggest bombing raids in history
in 1972. He was quoted in the Nixon tapes as
considering a Nuclear assault and not caring
one bit about the lives of civilians, women, children
(who he regarded as "gooks").
The war stopped - only because the U.S. failed
to have impact on the government of South Vietnam
in spite of all the bombing, burning, chemical warfare,
nerve gas, genocide, etc.
If Nixon was -not- a war monger ... I'd like to
see a better illustration.
He and Johnson will forever stand out in U.S. history
for their recklessness like no other Presidents.
> > "Look if anything 'happens' to either me or Yoko
> > it was not an accident!"
> > -John Lennon, 1972
>
> Rock stars being "set up" for drug busts in the early seventies was not
> uncommon.
Nonsense .. in the early 70s - Marijuana had reached a point
where .. people could smoke it without fear of arrest.
It was a part of culture and it was "ok".
Attempts to plant or entrap someone for criminal prosection
was not done with popular celebrities.
Lennon was targeted because of his influence and polticial activism.
Again, this is no the way a "free country" should be.
> John IS the traditional artist:
> poor (to begin with), a fighter for the lower classes, a tortured soul, an
> untimely death. Paul isn't: he married, stays out of the limelight, and so on.
Paul .. stays out of the limelight -?
LOL
This guy is the biggest self-promoter and limelight hog
there ever was.
> These dead
> artists who die before their natural time are gurus to the American public
> that think that it is "better to burn out than to fade away."
No.
I could give a rats arse about Morrison
(Robbie Kreiger wrote the door's biggest songs anyway)
Sid vicious, or Kurt Cobain.
John Lennon is a different matter because of the
enormous body and enormous range of his music,
his idealism, and desire to make a difference.
Lennon was clearly one of the most important figures
of his day - as illustrated by (not death .. but)
his "Man of the Decade" recognition that he received
at the young age of 30.
Clearly Lennon has neither burned-out or faded away
when he was perceived in 1970 as a "Man of the Decade".
I didn't see McCartney protesting against this award
either or claiming at that time that it was he who
was the the culturally influential one.
> The dead can do no wrong.
Tell that to Albert Goldman.
> Paul is still alive. He has faults, and the critics love(d) to use them
> against him. One of those is that he projects an image of the "nice" guy.
Wrong.
One of those faults is that he projects a dishonest image of
being the "big guy" in the Beatles who "did it all"
(with bandleader Lennon diminished to merely a 'partner').
You do not have to take just "my word" for it.
Ringo has said the same thing:
"Paul wants to -be known- as the one who 'did it all'
which I think .... is not true."
-Ringo Starr
I'm sorry, but there is nothing "nice" about
this behavior.
Trampling on Lennon's memory and trying to take
credit (falsely) as the innovator in the band
after his death - is slimey .. unethical ..
and cheating.
A "nice guy" - wouldn't spin and warp history
to suit himself ... after the others had died.
The truth is, this is not even really a "nice guy" at all ..
- Derek
Bob Gill
> [A whole lot of stuff that repeats a whole lot of stuff he wrote last time, and
> the time before that, and the time before that...]
You know that stereotype of the brainless guide at the museum who memorizes his
spiel and has to start over at the beginning if anyone interrupts with a question?
That's you. No matter what anybody says, you trot out the same selected quotes
(Ringo's, for instance), the same song comparisons, the same hackneyed and
borderline psychotic diatribes.
You're also the kind of fan who scares these rock stars _ a reminder that "fan"
comes from "fanatic," as one guy pointed out over in r.m.b.m. The worst criticism
anyone can make of John Lennon is that he apparently inspired devotion in the likes
of you.
Don't mistake this for name-calling; I'm doing my best to make sense out of your
mental state, as revealed in your voluminous and irrational rants. This is what we
get when the Internet is available to every idiot with a keyboard.
-- Bob G.
MikeSo
> > > -not- by his accomplishments .. but simply by his death.
> > > But how can a man who was recognized with a "Man of the Decade"
> > > distinction while he was alive (at 30 years old) and recognized
> > > as the Beatles leader (by the band label's own PR) and most
> > > brilliant member suddenly be "less than" this after his death?
> >
> > It's not a question of Lennon being "less than," Derek, it's a question
of
> > Lennon being "more than" -- as in "Lennon was more than the Beatles ever
> > was, while McCartney, Harrison and Starr were absolute nothings."
>
>
> Of course, no one (and no Lennon fans such as myself) has
> ever said this statement (which you faslely accuse).
> In fact, every eulogy about Lennon went out of its way
> to avoid refering to Lennon as "the leader" of the band
> and highlighted the partnership with McCartney.
You've loudly proclaimed with each post that Lennon was "the leader" of the
band and have discredited the partnership with McCartney, taking great
offense (as if you were the author yourself) over each and every
songwritting credit as if your very life depended upon it.
> All of the eulogies about Harrison have also identified
> him as a strong and original creative force within the band.
> So you are worried about something that never happened.
>
Never say never. There were hundreds of newspapers throughout the country
printing articles at the time of John's passing. I have news clips from
local Seattle / Tacoma papers that spoke so highly of Lennons achievments
that a Paul/George/Ringo fan might interpret it to mean that "Lennon was THE
BEATLES".
>
> > > McCartney, on the other hand, has been awarded and
> > > tributed at every turn in a way that he never was
> > > during the 1970s .. ever since Lennon's death.
>
> > How celebrated has he really been?
>
> Well, for starters, he has been "Knighted".
> In addition, he has received just about every award
> known to mankind and tributed like royalty on every
> TV appearnce he makes (with no one daring to ask
> him "tough" questions about his work or his "history").
>
Knighthood was bestowed upon him for his body of work (of which his Beatles
past was a part) along with his charity works, LIPA sponsorship and his
continuing contributions to "Great Britian". Had Lennon lived, it is not
only possible, but probable that he too would have received this honor,
unfortunately his life was cut short so we'll never know. As of the "tough
questions", perhaps you should aim your ire at the press for not asking
these questions ... Paul answers questions at interviews, he doesn't ask
them.
> > his album Press To Play had been a
> > tremendous failure and he was contemplating quitting music altogether.
>
> So why is he given more awards then ... this proves my point.
>
Because he rebounded with some of his better albums following this period.
If one failure is all a person gets (tremendous or otherwise), we should
never foregive John for "Sometimes in New York", or Ringo for "Bad Boy" or
George for .... you get the point (now don't you, you nuaghty bouy!).
> > snubbed by the so-called Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame.
>
> Actually, McCartney was the one who snubbed the R&R Hall
> when he refused to appear with George,Ringo, & Yoko to
> accept the Beatles nomination. He created the "riff"
> and was inducted anyway a few years later
> so it is silly to portray McCartney as a victim.
>
>
> > Wings were a spectacular success;
>
> They were roundly shelacked by the critics
So, is Paul "tributed" (your word) by the press, fans, heads of state, etc.
or is he a punching bag for them because of his days with Wings? You can't
have it both ways now, so choose wisely.
> .. and when songs like "Silly Love Songs" and "Let 'em In" - I
> would hardly call them a "spectacular success" no matter
> whether or not they charted. On an artistic level
> this was a retreat to embarassing soft-lilly-white pap muzak
> .. not material fit for "lifetime acheivement awards,
> "Hall-of-Fame" and Knights.
>
And yet ... there he is with all those things. Pretty gauling, eh?? You
should have stepped up your campaign before these injustices! :-)
> > Lennon's material in the seventies was
> > poorly recieved by the public.
>
> Lennon had hit songs with: "Instant Karma",
> "Give Peace A Chance", "Imagine",
> "Whatever Gets You Throught The Knight", "Fame",
> "#9 Dream", "Mind Games", etc.
>
McCartney has hits songs and you say it's not a valid point, yet John has
hit songs and it's okay to mention chart success. Why?
> His album sales were uneven .. but not without significant successes.
>
> In any event, volume of sales ... and material success
> has little to do with things like artistic value, originality,
> cultural/social influence.
>
Then why raise the issue of chart success to denigrate Paul and elevate
John?
> Songs like "Imagine" will live on long after Paul's
> cheery "Silly Love Songs" fade into the "nothing special" bin
> of history.
>
Songs like "Silly Love Songs" will live on long after John's ludicrous
"Attica State" fade into the "nothing special" bin in history. For every
Paul song you choose to trash to elevate a John song, I or anyone else can
do the same for Macca. It's circular in nature, but it proves nothing other
than your preference for John's solo (and Beatles) work over Pauls.
>
> > > meanwhile
> > > Lennon's pivotal role in the band has been
> > > lost or obfuscated by endless retellings of
> > > band history by others [read: McCartney & PR friends]
> >
> > Read Anthology. Lennon himself admits he wasn't the only one with a
pivotal
> > role in the band
>
> That is not what I said (and just deflects the real issue).
> McCartney (along with his PR people) has lied about
> Beatles history to skew things around to make Lennon
> appear far less significant than he was (and dress up
> McCartney as being the "avant garde" guy who "did everything").
> The point is ... if there was any "false" history about
> the peoples - it was not introduced by eulogies about
> Lennon - it was only introduced for the first time
> with McCartney's own blatant self-glorifying revisionism.
>
While you would argue that no one has any difficulty identifying Pauls
contributions to the Beatles and pop music in general (well, except yourself
perhaps) and that there is no reason to "self-promote" his contributions at
the expense of Lennon others would argue that no one has difficulty seeing
John's contributions and that very little that Paul has to say tarnishes the
Lennon legacy. It seems to depend upon your views on "conspiracies" and who
your favorite Beatle is.
> > Contrary to your - and some critics' - opinion, Lennon was the not the
total
> > sum of the Beatles.
>
> I have never said this (or anything close to this).
> I have always said John,Paul,& George were
> an irreplaceable unit. However, the Beatles
> reached their artistic high points ... with
> Lennon as the main songwriting/concept force
> ("Hard Day's Night", "Help", "Rubber Soul",
> "Strawberry Fields -> "All You Need Is Love", etc.)
> and always fell into mediocrity ("Magical Mystery Tour"
> "Let It Be") when McCartney was the dominant force.
>
Poor Ringo, always the odd man out. I'd be glad to highlight songs from the
lower eschelon of the Lennon catalog while identifying McCartney artistic
high points but there is no use in doing so. As I said above, it's circular
in nature and proves nothing other than your preference for John's solo (and
Beatles) work over Pauls.
How would you know these or ANY of his solo recordings? Surely you haven't
listened to enough of his solo material to make these kinds of judgements.
As to "re-peddeling his old Beatle songs", surely you aren't suggesting that
he shouldn't play songs that he wrote and recorded, are you? Should John
have played Beatle material in his few concert appearances? Should George
have relied so heavily upon Beatle material when he toured Japan in the
early 90's? Should Ringo continue to play his Fabs material during his
All-Starr tours?? Is Billy Joel still allowed to play Piano Man in your
world? Can Eric Clapton play Cream tunes? Can the Stones still play
Satisfaction? Should Roger Waters play Pink Floyd material? Stop me when
you've heard enough.
Where in the heck did you live??????
> It was a part of culture and it was "ok".
> Attempts to plant or entrap someone for criminal prosection
> was not done with popular celebrities.
>
Wanna ask Peter Fonda about that?
> Lennon was targeted because of his influence and polticial activism.
> Again, this is no the way a "free country" should be.
>
>
> > John IS the traditional artist:
> > poor (to begin with), a fighter for the lower classes, a tortured soul,
an
> > untimely death. Paul isn't: he married, stays out of the limelight, and
so on.
>
> Paul .. stays out of the limelight -?
> LOL
> This guy is the biggest self-promoter and limelight hog
> there ever was.
>
Not throughout most of the decade of the seventies (while John was alive).
He drew attention to himself and his band during promotions for each new
album upon their release and on his 75-76 world tour, that was about it. I
suspect that the earlier poster was refering to his NOT being political and
remaining out of the limelight for his non-musical activites. John (and
Yoko's) appearances on talk shows (Mike Douglas, fer chris' sakes),
political rallies, telethons, concerts, protests were the height of
self-promotion (regardless of what you believe their intent was).
> > These dead
> > artists who die before their natural time are gurus to the American
public
> > that think that it is "better to burn out than to fade away."
>
> No.
> I could give a rats arse about Morrison
> (Robbie Kreiger wrote the door's biggest songs anyway)
> Sid vicious, or Kurt Cobain.
>
Only room in your heart for one guru??
> John Lennon is a different matter because of the
> enormous body and enormous range of his music,
> his idealism, and desire to make a difference.
> Lennon was clearly one of the most important figures
> of his day - as illustrated by (not death .. but)
> his "Man of the Decade" recognition that he received
> at the young age of 30.
>
> Clearly Lennon has neither burned-out or faded away
> when he was perceived in 1970 as a "Man of the Decade".
> I didn't see McCartney protesting against this award
> either or claiming at that time that it was he who
> was the the culturally influential one.
>
That's because he doesn't doubt for a minute that Lennon was a great
influence upon our culture. He just believes that he ALSO had a similar
influence on said culture (along with George and Ringo, lest we forget their
contributions).
>
> > The dead can do no wrong.
>
> Tell that to Albert Goldman.
>
> > Paul is still alive. He has faults, and the critics love(d) to use them
> > against him. One of those is that he projects an image of the "nice"
guy.
>
> Wrong.
> One of those faults is that he projects a dishonest image of
> being the "big guy" in the Beatles who "did it all"
> (with bandleader Lennon diminished to merely a 'partner').
>
Derek quote from earlier this post, "no one (and no Lennon fans such as
myself) has ever said this statement (which you faslely accuse). In fact,
every eulogy about Lennon went out of its way to avoid refering to Lennon as
"the leader" of the band".
Didn't take long for you to prove yourself wrong on that one, now did it.
No one else see's that being a partner in the most successful rock band in
history as a slam. Lennon WAS a partner with three other guys in the biggest
band of the 20th century, how is that "being diminished"??
> You do not have to take just "my word" for it.
> Ringo has said the same thing:
>
> "Paul wants to -be known- as the one who 'did it all'
> which I think .... is not true."
> -Ringo Starr
>
I've seen the complete quote from Ringo. Your frequent use of this "cut and
paste" version is NOT what Ringo was really saying, but feel free to delete
any words that you'd like to further your own arguement, let's not let the
truth stand in the way.
>
> I'm sorry, but there is nothing "nice" about
> this behavior.
>
> Trampling on Lennon's memory and trying to take
> credit (falsely) as the innovator in the band
> after his death - is slimey .. unethical ..
> and cheating.
>
John was "AN" innovator in the band, not "THE" innovator. The same can be
said for Paul, George and Ringo. You are far to hung up on there being only
ONE of everything. You can't see the trees for the forrest.
> A "nice guy" - wouldn't spin and warp history
> to suit himself ... after the others had died.
>
> The truth is, this is not even really a "nice guy" at all ..
>
John and George are dead, and you're not a very nice guy for trying to spin
and warp history to suit your need to see John as a greater individual than
he really was. It does a disservice to George, Ringo AND Paul for their
contributions to history.
>
> - Derek
--
Thanks,
Mike
Rich Zbras
were together. nuff said. Rich
"MikeSo" <mike...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uf88qgc...@news.supernews.com...
Rich Forman
>
> Paul is still alive. He has faults, and the critics love(d) to use them
> against him. One of those is that he projects an image of the "nice" guy.
> Hence the point in the article.
I think the "nice guy" tag also refers to, or results from, Paul's
unembarrassed, unapologetic forays into really lightweight fare along
the lines of "Mary Had a Little Lamb," "With a Little Luck," "Ebony
and Ivory" and "Listen to What the Man Said." Critics and the rock
listening audience
found this type of material so cloying and such a betrayal to whatever
"rock" or counter-culture credibility Paul may have once had, that
many never forgave him for it; and they (these songs) tended to
almost overpower and outweigh, in people's minds, Paul's many other
musical achievements that were indeed solidly in the rock category,
many fairly heavy.
richforman
dlarsson
> Don't mistake this for name-calling; I'm doing my best
LOL ... okay Sparky ... thanks for the laugh.
- Derek
dlarsson
> band and have discredited the partnership with McCartney,
Hmmm ... "discredited" the partnership with McCartney?
I don't think so. I've posted details about
their collaborative efforts many times and
within this very thread pointed out that
John, Paul, & George were "a unit"
> taking great
> offense (as if you were the author yourself) over each and every
> songwritting credit
I do have problems with "revised" (false) songwriting
credits and "new stories" promoted by McCartney - only
after Lennon's death - which cut him out of his own
songs. Yeah .. that should be a problem for any
fan that values accuracy (and honesty).
> There were hundreds of newspapers throughout the country
> printing articles at the time of John's passing. I have news clips from
> local Seattle / Tacoma papers that spoke so highly of Lennons achievments
> that a Paul/George/Ringo fan might interpret it to mean that "Lennon was THE
> BEATLES".
Unless, the paper said "Lennon was the Beatles" - there is
no reason a fan "might interpret it to mean" that.
I mean, come on, the man was shot to death .. and he
was factually the founder, leader, and chief songwriter
during their formative years and a social/cultural/political
lightning rod (unlike Paul) ... so any fan ought to
expect newspapers to "speak highly" of Lennon.
Why wouldn't they? .. and Why is that some kind of
threat to McCartney? No newspapers were saying
McCartney did not write "Yesterday" or "Hey Jude"
.. so there is no basis for your claim that McCartney
(or Harrison) were denied anything.
(The reverse is true .. as Pauls 'revisionism' illustrates)
> > > Wings were a spectacular success;
> >
> > They were roundly shelacked by the critics
>
> So, is Paul "tributed" (your word) by the press, fans, heads of state, etc.
> or is he a punching bag for them because of his days with Wings? You can't
> have it both ways now, so choose wisely.
You missed the point.
McCartney was "a punching bag" in the 70s.
Critics and rock fans had a low opinion of him
and his "Wings" work (his following was a "pop"
following).
This -changed- after Lennon's death, partly due
to Paul .. using the Beatles (Anthology) and his
association with the Beatles (video clips, concerts)
to sell and promote every activity that he does,
(combined with his dishonest, self-serving, portrayal
of Beatles history - a huge disservice to the others).
During the late 80s, 90s, and 00s - McCartney
has been treated like royalty and puffed up
as "Mr. Beatle" in the eyes of the public.
This is all quite artificial .. on the
strength of McCartney's solo music alone
.. this could not have been possible.
But he had successfully fed upon Beatles nostalgia
to curry this outpouring of Beatlemania-like worship.
My criticism has less to due with his vanity
then his dishonesty. When somebody is killed
you don't bury their accomplishments and try
to take credit for everything - that's pretty ugly.
> > > Lennon's material in the seventies was
> > > poorly recieved by the public.
> >
> > Lennon had hit songs with: "Instant Karma",
> > "Give Peace A Chance", "Imagine",
> > "Whatever Gets You Throught The Knight", "Fame",
> > "#9 Dream", "Mind Games", etc.
> >
>
> McCartney has hits songs and you say it's not a valid point, yet John has
> hit songs and it's okay to mention chart success. Why?
The point was made only because the poster claimed
Lennon had no success (above).
> While you would argue that no one has any difficulty identifying Pauls
> contributions to the Beatles and pop music in general (well, except yourself
> perhaps) and that there is no reason to "self-promote" his contributions at
> the expense of Lennon others would argue that no one has difficulty seeing
> John's contributions and that very little that Paul has to say tarnishes the
> Lennon legacy.
Well, he takes credit for John's songs, ideas,
and even goes to the absurd extreme of claiming
that John was "very square" and he was the
"avant garde" guy in the band (of course
an examination of the Beatles material proves
the exact opposite).
> > Nonsense .. in the early 70s - Marijuana had reached a point
> > where .. people could smoke it without fear of arrest.
>
> Where in the heck did you live??????
Not only did cops "look the other way" ... they smoked
the stuff themselves. It was treated as "a misdemeanor"
(unless you were black perhaps or a political activist
and they wanted to press the full weight of the law on you).
>>>> Paul isn't: he married, stays out of the limelight
> > Paul .. stays out of the limelight -?
> > LOL
> > This guy is the biggest self-promoter and limelight hog
> > there ever was.
> >
>
> Not throughout most of the decade of the seventies (while John was alive).
Exactly. When John was alive ... Paul was honest
and did not try to masquarade as the "I did it all" guy
and play-upon Beatles nostalgia at every turn.
After Lennon's death .. he has become the used-car salesman
or Enron accountant of Music.
> > Clearly Lennon has neither burned-out or faded away
> > when he was perceived in 1970 as a "Man of the Decade".
> > I didn't see McCartney protesting against this award
> > either or claiming at that time that it was he who
> > was the the culturally influential one.
> >
>
> That's because he doesn't doubt for a minute that Lennon was a great
> influence upon our culture. He just believes that he ALSO had a similar
> influence on said culture (along with George and Ringo, lest we forget their
> contributions).
But it was factualy not all equal. That is the myth.
They both created the Beatles music/material (along with George).
But McCartney never invented genres of music
(surrealism, psychedelic) that didn't exist before.
McCartney was never a political/social lightning rod.
McCartney's was never an idealist preoccupied with the
plight of government, religious, and social injustice.
McCartney's words are not memorable or insightful
enough to be quoted and used as "sound bites" as Lennon's were.
McCartney was not the founder of the band and it's orginal leader.
McCartney was not a legendary character BEFORE the band
ever got famous.
The things that apply to Lennon .. do not with McCartney.
It is a myth to portray them as equal in every aspect.
> > > Paul is still alive. He has faults, and the critics love(d) to use them
> > > against him. One of those is that he projects an image of the "nice"
> guy.
> >
> > Wrong.
> > One of those faults is that he projects a dishonest image of
> > being the "big guy" in the Beatles who "did it all"
> > (with bandleader Lennon diminished to merely a 'partner').
>
> Derek quote from earlier this post, "no one (and no Lennon fans such as
> myself) has ever said this statement (which you faslely accuse). In fact,
> every eulogy about Lennon went out of its way to avoid refering to Lennon as
> "the leader" of the band".
>
> Didn't take long for you to prove yourself wrong on that one, now did it.
You missed the mark here.
My "quote" was about the accusation that I said Paul/George/Ringo
were "nothing". I never said this.
All I stated was McCartney's dishonesty has diminished Lennon's
true accomplishments in the band.
Try to not twist my words into something different.
> > "Paul wants to -be known- as the one who 'did it all'
> > which I think .... is not true."
> > -Ringo Starr
>
> I've seen the complete quote from Ringo. Your frequent use of this "cut and
> paste" version is NOT what Ringo was really saying
I altered no words.
The meaning is not ambiguous.
> > I'm sorry, but there is nothing "nice" (Paul) about
> > this behavior.
> >
> > Trampling on Lennon's memory and trying to take
> > credit (falsely) as the innovator in the band
> > after his death - is slimey .. unethical ..
> > and cheating.
> >
>
> John was "AN" innovator in the band, not "THE" innovator. The same can be
> said for Paul, George and Ringo. You are far to hung up on there being only
> ONE of everything. You can't see the trees for the forrest.
George has only recently gotten the credit he deserves.
However, while Paul wrote many fine songs .. he was
not a break-all-the-rules type of creator in the way
that Lennon was. All you have to do is listen
to the records. Lennon's songs were always the
Beatles "cutting edge" music (as well as some things
from George) .. no matter what album title was involved
while Paul's songs were always more conventially and
commercially structured.
There may be a few exceptions here and there
(such as Eleanor Rigby .. which was a collaboration)
however, the general statement is pretty accurate.
> > A "nice guy" - wouldn't spin and warp history
> > to suit himself ... after the others had died.
> >
> > The truth is, this is not even really a "nice guy" at all ..
> >
>
> you're not a very nice guy for trying to spin
> and warp history to suit your need to see John as a greater individual
You are accusing me of spinning.
This is false.
Lennon's accomplishments (song credits, Beatles, etc.)
were documented when he was alive (with no public dissent
or outcry then from Paul). Lennon's cultural influence
is clear from the manner in which his actual expressions
seem pervade modern political dialog around the
world. The fact he was nearly thrown out of the U.S.
also is pertinent to the type of unique cultural impact
that Lennon had.
This is all part of history ... not spin.
What is spin ... is that Paul wrote 50% of
"Do You Want To Know A Secret", etc.
and was the "Avant Garde" songwriter in the band.
It may not seem "nice" to point this out
but it is true ... and a whole lot "nicer"
then accpeting blatant lies about Beatles history
(from Paul).
"Paul wants to -be known- as the one who 'did it all'
which I think .... is not true."
-Ringo Starr
See ... Ringo agrees with me
- Derek
Brian Fried
> ever said this statement (which you faslely accuse).
And yet, in the same post you state that Lennon was the greatest innovator,
that things became mediocre when Paul took over, and Lennon was the genius
of the band.
It is not a false accusation to say that Lennon's presence in the PUBLIC'S
PERCEPTION of the band was raised tremendously after his death. The band was
all four, each with their own goals (some shared with the others, some not)
and that has been obscured by much of the music press -- particularly in
America -- since 1980.
> In fact, every eulogy about Lennon went out of its way
> to avoid refering to Lennon as "the leader" of the band
> and highlighted the partnership with McCartney.
Not *every* eulogy; many eulogies referred to Lennon as "the early leader"
of the Beatles, since there was an obvious shift of frontman in 1966/67
(proven by the Beatles themselves in Anthology).
> All of the eulogies about Harrison have also identified
> him as a strong and original creative force within the band.
Not any I saw. He was referred to as the quiet one who began to bud at the
end of the Beatles and blossomed with All Things Must Pass. As I noted in a
previous response -- one which you seem to have ignored -- history in the
modern age is reduced to a series of highlights.
In the case of Harrison it was: a Beatle, fascination with India, began to
write really good songs 68-69, All Things Must Pass, Bangladesh, Handmade
Films/Monty Python's Life Of Brian, "All Those Years Ago," Cloud Nine, The
Wilburys, death, last album.
> So you are worried about something that never happened.
It has happened. I'd suggest a quantitative system to prove it, but you've
already demonstrated a bias against that.
> Well, for starters, he has been "Knighted".
Lennon, if alive today, could not be knighted because he was an AMERICAN
citizen!
Paul has never left the UK - he continues to make London and Scotland his
primary homes. He was knighted for his contributions to music (Beatles,
Wings AND solo), his contributions to Inland Revenue (which are
substantial), his work with the Royal Academy of Music, Liverpool Institute
for Performing Arts, and his environmental crusadism (amongst other things).
> In addition, he has received just about every award
> known to mankind and tributed like royalty on every
> TV appearnce he makes (with no one daring to ask
> him "tough" questions about his work or his "history").
First of all, he doesn't do television all that much. When he does, he is
treated like any other legendary star because that's how celebrity
interviews go. The interviewer and the producer(s) are on their knees
thanking their deities that this star has come to them today.
He's proved his creative ability a long time ago, and the fact he's still
working and getting recognized puts him in a small category. I doubt you'll
have find any difference in the way Paul is treated with the way other rock
stars producing music pre-1974 or any longstanding movie stars (DeNiro,
Hoffman, etc.) are treated. Even Bono is treated with respect for his
achievements.
"Tough" vs. "easy" questions are not Paul's responsibility, they are the
responsibility of the interviewer. If you think John wasn't inundated with
"easy" questions, you must live in a different universe entirely: he was
most definitely inundated with them - it's just that celebrities often turn
to stock answers to repeated questions, and it all becomes one blurry note.
> So why is he given more awards then ... this proves my point.
It doesn't prove your point. McCartney hadn't received anything close to a
lifetime achievement award prior to 1986 other than Guiness' Rhodium disc.
With McCartney hinting he may leave music, much of the industry thought that
was the time to honour him for all he's done up to that point, which is a
tremendous amount of work.
Lennon says it himself in the final pages of Anthology: Paul was the
enthusiastic one who kept wanting to do records and performances, while he
was lazy about it (if he had something he felt like recording, he did).
> Actually, McCartney was the one who snubbed the R&R Hall
> when he refused to appear with George,Ringo, & Yoko to
> accept the Beatles nomination.
He didn't refuse the nomination, he refused to appear at the induction
because there was a large disagreement between him and the others
(particularly him and Yoko) over the royalty rates coming out of Apple. Paul
had a clause added to his EMI contract to get an increased royalty over all
previous work -- including the Beatles -- and with the CD revolution it was
clear he was making more than the others. He's been quite candid about that.
> He created the "riff"
Then how do you explain other artists who were brought in too late? It's an
American Hall, with a bias to American charts and a lack of concern with
their own nomination rules. David Bowie, for example, began recording in
1966 (and released his first solo album in 1969) but was inducted for the
1973 year. The year Paul was inducted corresponded to 1974, and inducted
Paul (first solo release 1970, no solo release between 1971 and 1979) and
Billy Joel (first solo release 1971).
The Hall, apparently, nominates according to awards ceremony. Springsteen
was automatic, and they looked around for people who would fit in the same
category to make the show better. I doubt it would have looked romantic to
them if Springsteen was up there with AC/DC, The Eagles and Aerosmith --
just I have a strong suspicion that the heavy rock acts of the late
seventies will be inducted in one ceremony while the disco stars are in
another.
> and was inducted anyway a few years later
> so it is silly to portray McCartney as a victim.
Eligibility was supposed to take place 25 years after initial release.
Lennon was inducted for 1969 ("Give Peace A Chance," Plastic Ono Band).
McCartney was eligible for 1970 but left off the ballot for 4 years. He
should have been an automatic name on the ballot, but that year's induction
ceremony had, apparently, already been chosen.
> Lennon had hit songs with: "Instant Karma",
> "Give Peace A Chance", "Imagine",
> "Whatever Gets You Throught The Knight", "Fame",
> "#9 Dream", "Mind Games", etc.
Lennon didn't write "Fame." (He gets no actual writing credit for it; the
song was written by Bowie prior to the Young Americans sessions and John
made a few suggestions and played on it.) And "Fame" was not a big
success -- it was top 40, but nowhere the success of other pieces around the
time (like "Junior's Farm," ironically enough!).
Like anothe poster here, I find it amazing that you refuse to accept the
chart presence of hit singles like "Another Day," "Uncle Albert/Admiral
Halsey," "Live And Let Die," "Band On The Run," "Jet," "Listen To What The
Man Said," "Silly Love Songs," "Maybe I'm Amazed," "Mull Of Kintyre" and
"Goodnight Tonight" (all of which, incidentally, were **number one**
singles) but are willing to recognize lower chart appearances by John as a
counter to their appearances.
> His album sales were uneven .. but not without significant successes.
After Plastic Ono Band and Imagine, his sales took a significant turn
downwards. The only album to come close to that -- without coming to
compilations -- was Double Fantasy.
It's far more telling that Lennon could not sell out Madison Square -- his
new home town's arena -- but Wings could. That is a clear identifier of
where PUBLIC tastes lied most. Wings WAS the band with the most hit singles
in the seventies, and one of the top three bands total (along, IIRC, with
Kiss and Led Zeppelin) of the decade.
> In any event, volume of sales ... and material success
> has little to do with things like artistic value, originality,
> cultural/social influence.
More people were listening to Wings than John Lennon. Lennon didn't reflect
the changes in public tastes after the Beatles, but Paul did in hairstyle,
clothing, etc.
And you're forgetting that Lennon was definitely quite from 1975 to 1980,
whereas Paul was preaching the value of vegetarianism, believing openly in
peace, and thinking about the planet during those same years.
If Lennon's preaching peace is received higher than McCartney's preaching
for ethical treatment of animals and caring for the planet, it's because of
our own biases towards the subject: the sixties -- not the seventies or
anything afterwards -- reinforced the belief that peace could be possible;
it wasn't until the mid-80s and the recognition of the rainforest problem
that people actually began to give a damn about environmental causes. (And
many, including George W. Bush, still don't treat its full impact as they
should.)
Artistic value is highly subjective, Derek. McCartney's solo catalogue
hasn't been fully approached by anyone (there has to be a bio that goes
honestly through the phases of Paul's solo career, the songs, albums,
videos, etc) whereas Lennon's has become old hat. I can open any bio on
Lennon's solo career (Fred Seaman's not included, since it has a specific
time frame) and get a pretty good description of what John and Yoko did from
1970-1980 but I can't find any book that delves into what Paul and Linda did
that same period.
> Songs like "Imagine" will live on long after Paul's
> cheery "Silly Love Songs" fade into the "nothing special" bin
> of history.
I think you're wrong. "Imagine" is a beautiful anthem for a communist state
(read the definition of true communism by Marx and Engel, then compare it to
"Imagine" and you'll see the connection) and will stay around. But for all
those believers in such a state, there are an equal number of believers in
romance and the need for beautiful things around us. "Silly Love Songs"
speaks directly to that, and Baz Luhrman's (hope I spelled that right) use
of the song in Moulin Rouge last year indicates this beautifully. Moulin
Rouge admits openly to being a story about love, and what better song to say
romance is not dead than "Silly Love Songs"?
> McCartney (along with his PR people) has lied about
> Beatles history to skew things around to make Lennon
> appear far less significant than he was (and dress up
> McCartney as being the "avant garde" guy who "did everything").
You've obviously not read Anthology and Many Years From Now carefully
enough. In both (although they are actually one in the same, Miles having
interviewed McCartney for Anthology and Many Years From Now being the full
result), McCartney admits to doing all sorts of things and interesting John.
He'd show John, and John would try them. Paul never thought his stuff good
enough for release, but John thought his were. The basic point is that John
didn't come up with everything in a vacuum as the myth being pushed by much
of the music press would like you to believe; he came up with some of these
initial ideas, and Lennon himself says in Anthology that McCartney didn't
like to push boundaries when it came to marketable product.
McCartney WAS the avant garde one for much of the mid-sixties -- but he
didn't do it in commercial releases or drug use. He went to the theatre to
see the latest plays, he involved himself in a bookstore/gallery catering to
modern tastes, he bought art and did home experiments. John spent a lot of
time in the country, and I think you'll find a number of references in
Anthology how he never felt encouraged to try things as experimentally as he
did until he met Yoko. It was Yoko who told John to just do it, and John
needed that encouragement.
McCartney never says John wasn't trying the stuff too -- far from it. There
was always a competitive nature between them. What he does say is that
John's life in the country with Cynthia is often forgotten when speaking
about his work in the sixties. (Which seems logical: how could John be doing
all the clubs with the avant garde artists and be home with Cyn at the same
time?)
And when Yoko was encouraging John to try all this new stuff, Paul was
deciding it was time to settle down and act normal. He married Linda, moved
to the country, and turned to farming and raising a family. It's pretty easy
to see the connection between what Paul is saying and the films about John
and Paul post-1970. While John was having peace rallies, art shows and doing
some songwriting in a 'crazed' environment (that is, people everywhere),
Paul was up at the farm, making a home, and playing about in the studio when
the kids were asleep.
> The point is ... if there was any "false" history about
> the peoples - it was not introduced by eulogies about
> Lennon - it was only introduced for the first time
> with McCartney's own blatant self-glorifying revisionism.
McCartney's "revisionism" is in direct response to a recognition of a
distinct bias in the music press since December 1980. It has nothing to do
with the immediate eulogies of John Lennon, but rather the gradual shift in
the music press since then. I doubt in the nineties you would have found a
greater ratio in the teen population (those who were learning about music
for the first time) who believed John was the creative genius and Paul was
the overbearing mongrel who broke up the Beatles and writes nothing but
sappy love songs.
Trust me: I've worked with teens for many years now, either volunteering at
my old high school or having co-op students in the store where I work. There
are far more who believe nothing of Paul's is even worth listening too and
everything Lennon did worth it, despite the fact that they've never even
tried a Paul solo release (an opinion which shifts after playing a decent
McCartney compilation).
> I have never said this (or anything close to this).
You say that Lennon was the creative genius, the avant garde one, the one
who was the innovator, the only one who had artistic merit, etc. The
translation of the sum of all that is that Lennon was worth listening to,
and the others were pap. That's exactly the thinking McCartney (and his
fans) would like to reverse. The goal is not say Paul was worth listening to
and the others pap; the goal is to say Lennon and McCartney were a team,
they both did avant garde and experimental things, and they had different
artistic goals -- met in the seventies and onwards -- than each other after
68. Lennon himself said that Paul was the one interested in going back to
his roots, performing live and recording regularly -- which is *exactly*
what Wings did for Paul.
> However, the Beatles
> reached their artistic high points ... with
> Lennon as the main songwriting/concept force
> ("Hard Day's Night", "Help", "Rubber Soul",
> "Strawberry Fields -> "All You Need Is Love", etc.)
> and always fell into mediocrity ("Magical Mystery Tour"
> "Let It Be") when McCartney was the dominant force.
Strongly disagree with you there, Derek. According to all the Beatles (see
Anthology), it was an equal foursome in the studio and an equal pairing
between John and Paul right up until they stopped touring. Lennon himself
states in Anthology that McCartney was not as competitive for single
placement at the beginning, but when he wanted to he could write great songs
("I Want To Hold Your Hand" and "Can't Buy Me Love" come to mind.) If Lennon
was seen as a leader, it was often because John positioned himself as the
guy to go through to get to the other Beatles with Brian and a few others.
John could take the criticism and was outspoken; it's easy to see
McCartney's avoidance of the first person in songwriting, and his quick rise
to prominence in 1964 compared to George's similar one in 1968, as evidence
of a shy and conservative nature.
The artistic highpoints really come in 1965 through 1967, when the Beatles
were beginning to look for new ideas together. If Rubber Soul is John's
explosion, Revolver is Paul's -- Lennon refers to most of his pieces as
throwaways but loves Paul's contributions immensely. "Yesterday" was a high
point, as was "Eleanor Rigby," "For No One," "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts
Club Band," "Fixing a Hole" (which uses two different timings) and that's
just off the top of my head.
From mid-1967 onwards, Lennon was clearly done with the band. It began to
feel like work, and he began to search for deeper meanings in life.
McCartney became obsessive with keeping the work going, and I don't think we
would have gotten what came after as we did without him. Sure Lennon
contributed a number of amazing songs ("I Am The Walrus," "Across the
Universe," "Revolution," "Dear Prudence," "Happiness Is A Warm Gun,"
"Julia," "Good Night," "Don't Let Me Down," "I Want You (She's So Heavy" and
his own admission the Berry-robbing "Come Together") but McCartney had his
gems as well in that same period: "The Fool On The Hill," "Hey Jude,"
"Helter Skelter," "Blackbird," "Honey Pie," "Oh! Darling," "Let It Be," "The
Long And Winding Road," "Two Of Us," "Get Back," and the Abbey Road closing.
McCartney just pushed the boundaries differently in his songs. He was doing
things that he wasn't doing previously, something he's doing to this day,
and John was off doing things he hadn't done before, and neither was
crossing the other too much.
> > How come Lennon didn't use brass or strings?
>
> I guess you have never heard: "I Am The Walrus",
> "A Day In the Life", "#9 Dream", "Happy Christmas",
> "How Do You Sleep", "Goodnight", "Strawberry Fields Forever",
> "Glass Onion", "Revolution No 9".
I've heard those. Just as McCartney does a lot of blues and blues-based
numbers as well ("Can't Buy Me Love," "Oh! Darling," "Let Me Roll It," "I
Wanna Cry," "Shallow Grave").
> Exceptions can be found .. but the general comment
> remains accurate.
And that is that Lennon developed along blues lines, while McCartney
continued to forray into jazz and classical interests.
> Than there is little basis for the
> so-called:
> Lennon-Lyrics / McCartney-music
> dichotomy.
I think if you look at much of the modern view of John Lennon and Paul
McCartney, from the end of the Beatles onwards, you'll see that dichotomy in
full force. John was a poet, Paul was a musician.
> The band's musical materpeices were written
> and conceived by Lennon or those efforts
> dominated by him.
In your opinion, Derek. In your opinion. I wasn't disagreeing with you that
the psychadelic pieces were not inferior to the pop songs of Paul -- BUT I
disagree with you that Paul's contributions are inferior to John's. They are
equal. My personal taste runs to the masterpieces of Paul, because while
Lennon's work does have many interesting and beautiful moments, I prefer
Paul's style of finding good hooks and melodies to propel a song forward.
> The point is if you forget Lennon's lyrics
> he was still a huge musical innovator and creator
> in this band - and, in fact, exceeded McCartney
> in terms of sheer brilliance and originality.
I disagree, and so too would John Lennon were he alive today. Yes, John was
a huge musical innovator and he shouldn't be pegged for lyrics alone just as
Paul shouldn't be pegged for music alone. But Paul's stuff was equally
brilliant and original. Paul took instruments from all over the spectrum and
used them on his records -- strings, horns, etc. Anthology's interviews have
John admitting he wasn't into adding anything on top of the basic
instruments (something he continued to do through the solo years) but he
liked what Paul did with his own songs, the frills and things that Paul was
interested in because that was Paul's thing.
> Fine .. but take away Paul's constant re-peddeling
> of old Beatles songs .. and what do you really have?
> "Biker Like a Icon?" "Girl I Want It So Bad"?
> "Another Day"? ... i mean .. you reap what you sow.
Paul does not re-peddle the Beatles in the studio - name me one studio album
where he has. It is always a live album, such as Wings Over America (five
songs, compared to the twenty-plus Wings cuts), Broadstreet (where he was
working with George Martin and Ringo again, and even then just six of the
fifteen cuts are Beatles songs), Tripping The Live Fantastic (documenting
the return to touring, where he performed mostly Beatles songs never
performed live and mixing them with solo material), Paul Is Live (same as
before) and Unplugged (where he wanted to focus on older pieces, and the
Beatles were old).
Personally, I have no problem with "Biker Like An Icon" -- it's a great
piece for live performance that got overproduced in the studio. "Another
Day" is brilliant in its capture of the frenzy every day lives have, and has
an excellent energy to it (I haven't heard it in months and can hum the tune
and recite my favourite lyrics). "So Bad"... well, that's as much a sappy
declaration as "Woman" or "#9 Dream" or "Mind Games" isn't it?
And when you take away the Beatles songs done live, you also have a long
list of songs:
Maybe I'm Amazed, Junk, Every Night, Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey,
Give Ireland Back To The Irish, Some People Never Know, Little Lamb
Dragonfly, My Love, One More Kiss, Live And Let Die, Band On The
Run, Jet, Let Me Roll It, Mammunia, Junior's Farm, Bridge Over The
River Suite, Listen To What The Man Said, Treat Her Gently/Lonely Old
People, Magneto And Titanium Man, Beware My Love, She's My Baby,
Warm And Beautiful, Soily, Mull Of Kintyre, Cafe On The Left Bank,
I'm Carrying, Famous Groupies, Don't Let It Bring You Down, Rockestra,
Winter Rose/Love Awake, Coming Up, One Of These Days, Here Today,
Take It Away, The Pound Is Sinking, Dress Me Up As A Robber, Pipes
Of Peace, No Values, No More Lonely Nights (ballad), We All Stand
Together, Footprints, Talk More Talk, Pretty Little Head, Back On My
Feet, My Brave Face, We Got Married, This One, That Day Is Done,
Tres Conejos, Mistress And Maid, Lovers That Never Were, Kicked
Around No More, Big Boys Bickering, The World Tonight, Somedays,
Little Willow, Bison, Nova, From a Lover To A Friend, or Lonely Road
and that's without touching the great stuff on bootlegs. Have you listened
to
all those songs, Derek? Can you listen to them in that order and then say
Paul
has not had beautiful and elegant songs throughout his career that did
nothing
you don't expect from a McCartney record already?
> Nonsense - it was abusive - and not representative of a "free country"
The US doesn't open its doors to everyone. It has a right to protect its
sovereignty and culture from outside influences as any other western country
does (that's what immigration laws are there for in the first place!). As
George notes in Anthology, he still had problems with a visa to visit the
States after his drug bust. "Free" in the case of "free country" does not
been carte blanche -- there are even exceptions to the First Ammendment --
it means that its citizens enjoy *relatively* more freedoms than other
nations, although this was actually a falacy until the late sixties/early
seventies as blacks were not treated as full citizens fully until that
point.
> Sorry, Lennon was not a "communist".
Read Marx & Engels. Then look at Mao. Now look at "Imagine." If that song
isn't espousing the values of communism, I don't know what is. Lennon
himself said he looked closely at Maoism at the time, and "Imagine" was
greatly influenced by that - which explains how someone so wealthy can
espouse no material things.
> Furthermore, he broke no laws ...
He was busted for drugs in England. He had a record. The US doesn't want
known criminals, it wants people who are productive to society. Even to this
day, there's a belief that once a criminal/always a criminal.
> nor was
> he at all violent or seeking anything other
> than peaceful dissent. That was what
> this country was supposed to be founded on.
Actually, the US was founded on cheaper taxes and the freedom to pursue
different religious ideals. The Reformation in the sixteenth century had put
England against much of Europe, particularly France with whom they were at
war with on and off for close to the next three centuries. Catholicism (and
Judaism) had been banned in England. Even when restrictions were relaxed on
living there, the English demanded fealty be sworn to the Church of England
before you could hold any government position (something which changed after
the 1770s!). The Mayflower crew did not follow the faith the same way as the
Church of England and fled from religious prosecution.
They weren't seeking a peaceful dissent, they were seeking a way out of
prison and execution. And they were certainly violent afterwards: the US is
a war happy nation, having taken the land by force from the native people.
American history viewed from afar (as I do see it above the 49th parallel)
is projected as: arrival, war with the Indians, war with the British, war
against Mexico, war between the States, WWI, WWII, Korea, Cold War, Vietnam,
Desert Storm and now terrorism.
Plus, given that America saw its position on the world map as being
entrusted to stand against communism whereever it should be, letting someone
with public power into the country so that he could further turn the public
against that position would certainly have been feared as a tip of the big
domino (as in the domino effect).
> Our "non-communist" U.S. Gov. was, meanwhile,
> burning and bombing innocent civilians in Asia
> every day in a genocidal way - with no purpose.
They were fighting on behalf of those who didn't want Nam to become a
communist nation (ie. South Vietnam). They were also fighting for dominance
in the world military market against the Russians. The US couldn't fight
Russia directly, since that would have escalated into nuclear holocaust. So
they fought in places like Israel (the Arab nations around Israel had
Russian MiGs, the Israelis American-built F-15s) and Asia.
> There was no "logic" to that.
See above.
> He did.
Nixon didn't.
> Woodstock was almost shut down by the Republican Governor
> but they body count there was so large .. it would have
> required tear gas and a huge public relations problem
> (and possible injurt or death).
Nixon wasn't from New York State. The American public has routinely avoided
voting in a New York president.
> The war stopped - only because the U.S. failed
> to have impact on the government of South Vietnam
> in spite of all the bombing, burning, chemical warfare,
> nerve gas, genocide, etc.
Many military historians would disagree with you there. The US really lost
the war in Vietnam because it failed to move in country. (How many Nam
movies and TV shows showed tanks rolling through? The US armed forces are
about overwhelming might, not patrols.)
The war stopped because North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam successfully and
took the capital, at which point anyone not wanting to be communist had to
flee the country to survive.
> He and Johnson will forever stand out in U.S. history
> for their recklessness like no other Presidents.
What world are you living in? The history books have been written by now,
and Johnson is going to be remembered for taking over after Kennedy's
assassination, and refusing to get out of Vietnam when public support was
clearly against it (because the US government was worried about the domino
effect). Nixon will be forever remembered for Watergate and the missing
tapes. Both are considered good presidents because the country had a robust
economy and there were amazing technological developments during those
eras -- not to mention reams of important legislation.
It's like Clinton: you can either fault him for his sexual indiscretions and
resultant almost-impeachment (for which he will marked forever in the
history books) or you can look at him as a good president for a robust
economy, legislation on important issues (agreeing to the world court, some
environmental legislation) and a willingness to get the US involved in
important world issues (Ireland, Yugoslavia, the Middle East).
> Nonsense .. in the early 70s - Marijuana had reached a point
> where .. people could smoke it without fear of arrest.
Then how do you explain Paul getting busted in, what was it, 1973?
Marijuana has always been illegal except in Holland, Derek - until recently,
when some countries (like Canada and some of the US states) have allowed it
in medical circumstance cases only.
> It was a part of culture and it was "ok".
I think many Americans with criminal records for it would disagree.
> Attempts to plant or entrap someone for criminal prosection
> was not done with popular celebrities.
Sgt. Pilcher anyone? Anyone??
Given that John was paranoic (by his own admission at the time), a repeat of
the Pilcher escapade would certainly have been thought of by him at the
time.
> Lennon was targeted because of his influence and polticial activism.
> Again, this is no the way a "free country" should be.
Free countries keep an eye on dissidents and those who destroy the country.
That's how they stay free. You must be unique if you feel safe letting guys
run around with high powered explosives all around where you live; the rest
of the US seems content to let the FBI and ATF watch out for lunatics like
those who blew up a building in downtown Oklahoma City. And I think I say
for the rest of the sane world that they're mighty pleased police forces in
free countries like the US, Canada and the UK are keeping an eye out for
terrorist cells to prevent a repeat of September 11th, 2001.
> Paul .. stays out of the limelight -?
> LOL
> This guy is the biggest self-promoter and limelight hog
> there ever was.
Paul does the promotional circuit, as necessitated by his job. But aside
from a handful of rare interviews (often promised during a previous
engagement), when does Paul talk to the press about something other than
work? And note that I'm including LIPA, etc. as work because McCartney often
goes to perform.
John and Yoko loved the press. They enjoyed making statements because they
knew it was in their power to have their words heard.
Paul, in contrast, will go to his daughter's premiere in Paris, maybe say a
word or two to the camera as he walks out (like "good show" or "I'm proud")
and that's it. He keeps the rest of his life private, and as Frannie has
said times before it's not in Paul's nature to really contemplate the power
of his word.
> I could give a rats arse about Morrison
> (Robbie Kreiger wrote the door's biggest songs anyway)
> Sid vicious, or Kurt Cobain.
Nevertheless my point is valid that dead artists are loved by the American
public in general. Morrison was a cult leader to many in California, Kurt
Cobain was symbolized as a spokesman for his generation.
> Lennon was clearly one of the most important figures
> of his day - as illustrated by (not death .. but)
> his "Man of the Decade" recognition that he received
> at the young age of 30.
"Man of the Decade" was not unanimously awarded by everyone on the planet.
If Paul was called "songwriter of the century" by the BBC, you'd probably
object to that too, right Derek?
And Lennon was not the only important figure of the sixties or seventies. I
think John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Richard Nixon and Malcolm X have
greater importance. Timothy Leary, Andy Warhol... John wasn't the only
artist to impact the culture as a whole (Warhol's observations are far more
important to our everyday lives than ever before).
> Clearly Lennon has neither burned-out or faded away
> when he was perceived in 1970 as a "Man of the Decade".
By those who were doing the perceiving.
Today, John's importance in music -- Beatle or not -- is has been surpassed
by David Bowie according to another system of awards.
> I didn't see McCartney protesting against this award
> either or claiming at that time that it was he who
> was the the culturally influential one.
For two reasons: first, there was probably a recognition this was one of the
many awards each was receiving during that decade, and he knew John paid
about as much attention to polls and stuff like that as he did (which was
pretty much nil). Second, there wasn't an imbalance then like there was now.
No one in the seventies could say Paul wasn't still contributing a lot to
society - just doing it in a way different than John. (People laughed at
John for his stance on peace in the early sixties; a decade later they
laughed at Paul for caring about the planet; how do we seem to accept both
now?) "Man of the Decade" comes as an immediate recognition of his
achievements to that point, and at that point the Beatles were still being
viewed by the music press as the Fab Foursome, not Johnny and the other boys
as some rock critics are doing now.
> > The dead can do no wrong.
>
> Tell that to Albert Goldman.
And your dismissal of Goldman, Seaman, etc. is a perfect example of my
point, Derek. Anything written about a deceased person must automatically be
mud slinging in your opinion, (especially when it's John). After George
died, any flops and failures he had faded from memory; same too with Linda.
Even the Beatles felt this way: two decades after the collapse of the
Beatles, it was the happy times they remembered most and not the bitter
times.
> One of those faults is that he projects a dishonest image of
> being the "big guy" in the Beatles who "did it all"
> (with bandleader Lennon diminished to merely a 'partner').
His nice guy image includes the unjustly forgotten person part. (A
not-so-nice person would have quibbled with every little statement from the
first to the last.) He isn't asking to be the one who did it all, he's
asking to be recognized as an equal who did more than thought when it came
to experimenting with new things. You see it as ego, he sees it as
correcting the record that the critics are playing (and new listeners
hearing).
> You do not have to take just "my word" for it.
> Ringo has said the same thing:
I've read the whole Ringo statement. Dropping words changes the context
completely. If I did that with your posts, I could have you saying John
wasn't then creative one -- it would still be YOUR words, but the meaning
would be completely different.
> I'm sorry, but there is nothing "nice" about
> this behavior.
If a landmark product was released, and you were ignored for your
significant contibution while everyone else who contributed was praised,
you'd speak out too. Nice guys don't get beaten quietly and then ask for
more -- at least not unless they are Canadians and it's taxation.
> Trampling on Lennon's memory and trying to take
> credit (falsely) as the innovator in the band
> after his death - is slimey .. unethical ..
> and cheating.
I think if you look at Paul's comments carefully, and not skim them, you'll
note there's fewer people who are bigger fans of John than Paul. He's not
trampling on Lennon's memory; he knows full well that Lennon will be
remembered forever. He wants the credit HE deserves, a credit that is equal
to John's for the Beatles, while he's still alive.
But, since YOU don't see an imbalance, you can't see the need to fix it,
either.
> A "nice guy" - wouldn't spin and warp history
> to suit himself ... after the others had died.
He's not warping history, he's correcting it. Again, it's in response to a
distortion - not a conscientious decision "I know, my next project will me
taking down the guy I loved so well..."
And it could only happen after John had died. John could put Paul down with
the best of 'em, but he'd also stand by Paul as well against the criticism.
Yoko speaks for John (and she doesn't stand by Paul), and Paul speaks for
Paul, and the music critics have chosen not to give them a balanced
approach.
Brian Fried
> Unless, the paper said "Lennon was the Beatles" - there is
> no reason a fan "might interpret it to mean" that.
Lennon was the leader who formed the band and took the lead in the early
years, Lennon wanted to announce the breakup not Paul as that he had been
the one to actually leave officially first... the implication is there.
> ... so any fan ought to
> expect newspapers to "speak highly" of Lennon.
> Why wouldn't they? .. and Why is that some kind of
> threat to McCartney?
The implication that John was this important figure who should be examined
ran opposite the criticism that McCartney had stopped making anything worth
listening to years ago. (It's a criticism to this day, since most critics
cannot fathom how a guy happily married with kids singing about love can
speak to teenagers and college students who are all experimenting with
drugs, having unprotected sex, and flipping off The Establishment.)
It threatened McCartney a decade later, as those who saw that juxtaposition
in their formative years clung to it and spread it out through the world.
> No newspapers were saying
> McCartney did not write "Yesterday" or "Hey Jude"
> .. so there is no basis for your claim that McCartney
> (or Harrison) were denied anything.
> (The reverse is true .. as Pauls 'revisionism' illustrates)
"Yesterday" and "Hey Jude," no. "Eleanor Rigby," yes. And Paul doesn't claim
John didn't write any of his best known songs ("Revolution," "Lucy In The
Skies With Diamonds") either.
> McCartney was "a punching bag" in the 70s.
> Critics and rock fans had a low opinion of him
> and his "Wings" work (his following was a "pop"
> following).
You miss the point completely that critics like what people don't because
that's what makes them critics. A proper critical reading today would call
all of Lennon's solo material if it were released today except "Give Peace A
Chance," "Power To The People" and "Imagine" absolute garbage not worth even
looking at.
> This -changed- after Lennon's death, partly due
> to Paul .. using the Beatles (Anthology) and his
> association with the Beatles (video clips, concerts)
> to sell and promote every activity that he does,
Yoko had the veto right on everything in Anthology. So did George. And
Ringo. They didn't cut it as being false, or complain bitterly that it has
too many lies.
Paul doesn't have the Beatles in any of his video clips. He uses them in
concerts, but only when Beatles songs are played just like any other artist
uses contemporary video footage.
You're like a rabid dog in this respect, Derek: you focus one instance and
assume it's through everything.
> During the late 80s, 90s, and 00s - McCartney
> has been treated like royalty and puffed up
> as "Mr. Beatle" in the eyes of the public.
Not everyone treats him as "Mr. Beatle." Jen's reposting of articles about
Paul throughout the tour -- particularly in the McCartney newsgroups -- has
shown that the treatment has certainly not been as lopsided as you make it
out to be.
> But he had successfully fed upon Beatles nostalgia
> to curry this outpouring of Beatlemania-like worship.
So you, Derek, decide to see a Beatle live and do... what? Dig up John's
corpse?
For many -- especially those born after 1970 -- the chances of seeing any of
the Beatles live is quite small. If you're getting into music now, it's even
slimmer: Ringo and Paul.
Christ, even after 1970 it was hard. John did selective performances, George
did one tour of America in 1974 and one in Japan in 1991 along with
selective performances, Ringo really has begun touring these last few years
(92 through 2001 there were seven tours of 30 cities each) and Paul's toured
1972 (UK), 1973 (Europe), 1975 (Australia, UK), 1976 (US), 1979 (UK),
1989/90 (world), 1992 (UK/Europe), 1993 (UK, Europe, Japan), 1994 (South
America), and now 2002 (US only) plus select appearances.
> The point was made only because the poster claimed
> Lennon had no success (above).
No, my post said his stuff was received poorly. After Imagine, sales on his
records slumped. He had two #1 singles, and "Imagine" wasn't one of them. He
failed to sell out Madison Square. That doesn't scream rousing success, but
it doesn't equal total failure either.
> Well, he takes credit for John's songs, ideas,
> and even goes to the absurd extreme of claiming
> that John was "very square" and he was the
> "avant garde" guy in the band (of course
> an examination of the Beatles material proves
> the exact opposite).
You haven't read Anthology.
You haven't read Many Years From Now.
You aren't using your brain.
You must think John was cloned to be both with Cynthia and being an
experimenter at the same time.
> Not only did cops "look the other way" ... they smoked
> the stuff themselves. It was treated as "a misdemeanor"
> (unless you were black perhaps or a political activist
> and they wanted to press the full weight of the law on you).
It's a misdemeanor by law, Derek. Unless you have above a certain amount, in
which case there's the intent to sell and that's a felony.
And not all cops smoked the stuff themselves. A lot of people were busted.
> After Lennon's death .. he has become the used-car salesman
> or Enron accountant of Music.
He still has stayed out of the limelight. Outside of promotion for his
material and a rare appearance for a cause like PETA or LIPA (always at an
event) he stays away from the press. And there are certain things that are
off limits for him, unlike John and Yoko (who thought everything should be
open).
> But McCartney never invented genres of music
> (surrealism, psychedelic) that didn't exist before.
Neither did Lennon. See Anthology for proof. They did whatever was out
there.
> McCartney was never a political/social lightning rod.
He is. Unless you think saving the planet and caring for the ethical
treatment of animals are useless.
> McCartney's was never an idealist preoccupied with the
> plight of government, religious, and social injustice.
He was concerned about music as a Beatle, and as a result we got four albums
we would not have gotten otherwise. Maybe you're ungrateful, but I'm not.
> McCartney's words are not memorable or insightful
> enough to be quoted and used as "sound bites" as Lennon's were.
In the sixties they were. The only Lennon quotes even remembered by those
who aren't devotees these days are the shocking ones.
> McCartney was not the founder of the band and it's orginal leader.
That doesn't make Lennon more important than McCartney, who kept the band
going to produce some of the best music the band had ever -- namely The
Beatles, Get Back and Abbey Road.
> McCartney was not a legendary character BEFORE the band
> ever got famous.
Neither was Lennon. Where you pulled that one from I have no idea.
> The things that apply to Lennon .. do not with McCartney.
> It is a myth to portray them as equal in every aspect.
Nobody says they were equal in EVERY aspect. But they weren't more important
than the other in terms of the Beatles overall, and that's where the
distortion lies: Lennon is believed to be important and Paul not, and that's
just not true.
> I altered no words.
> The meaning is not ambiguous.
The moment you cut words, it changes the entire context and meaning.
Example:
> George has only recently gotten the credit he deserves.
> However, while Paul wrote many fine songs .. he was
> not a break-all-the-rules type of creator in the way
> that Lennon was. All you have to do is listen
> to the records. Lennon's songs were always the
> Beatles "cutting edge" music (as well as some things
> from George) .. no matter what album title was involved
> while Paul's songs were always more conventially and
> commercially structured.
becomes...
George has... wrote many fine songs. All you have to do is listen
to the records. Lennon's songs were... always more conventially and
commercially structured.
I altered no words. (They're all yours.)
The meaning is not ambiguous. (It's clear what's being said.)
> George has only recently gotten the credit he deserves.
And why is that, Derek? Oh yeah, he's dead. Again, you disprove one thing
and use it against another.
> There may be a few exceptions here and there
> (such as Eleanor Rigby .. which was a collaboration)
> however, the general statement is pretty accurate.
Because "Please Please Me" and "From Me To You" were SOOOOOO not commerical.
You're so full of it, you don't know when you're stepping in it.
> Lennon's accomplishments (song credits, Beatles, etc.)
> were documented when he was alive (with no public dissent
> or outcry then from Paul).
Paul didn't feel like talking about the Beatles in the seventies. He had
other things on his mind, namely a band called Wings. John went to talk
specifically about the Beatles. Paul probably felt that when it came to
telling his story, it would be treated with the same reverence. You prove
him wrong.
> The fact he was nearly thrown out of the U.S.
> also is pertinent to the type of unique cultural impact
> that Lennon had.
I've nearly been thrown out of the US twice. Does that make me more a unique
cultural import? Does it??
> This is all part of history ... not spin.
History is not facts. History is an interpretation of facts.
> What is spin ... is that Paul wrote 50% of
> "Do You Want To Know A Secret", etc.
> and was the "Avant Garde" songwriter in the band.
Paul doesn't claim to be the avant garde songwriter of the band. He claims
to be the one who was most into the avant garde in the mid-sixties. He
claims to be experimenting with avant garde ideas but didn't put them in the
public sphere like John.
> It may not seem "nice" to point this out
> but it is true ... and a whole lot "nicer"
> then accpeting blatant lies about Beatles history
> (from Paul).
You're right, Derek: Paul should just admit he's a fraud, it was all John on
every single Beatle track, that he and Ringo and George were just session
players who never wrote anything important, and that he's just a hack so
he's turning it in. That makes real logical sense.... NOT!
You're allowing *your* distortion of events to fit your agenda (remember
everyone has an agenda in everything they do) to prevent you from seeing the
motivations of the other side.
> See ... Ringo agrees with me
I agree with your quote that George wrote fine songs and John only wrote
commercial ones. It's your words, the meaning is clear... does that mean
more?
Bill
Brian Fried wrote:
> Lennon, if alive today, could not be knighted because he was an AMERICAN
> citizen!
He was not an American citizen. He was a resident alien with a green
card.
> Lennon didn't write "Fame." (He gets no actual writing credit for it; the
> song was written by Bowie prior to the Young Americans sessions and John
> made a few suggestions and played on it.) And "Fame" was not a big
> success -- it was top 40, but nowhere the success of other pieces around the
> time (like "Junior's Farm," ironically enough!).
"Fame" reached number one on the Billboard singles chart, Bowie's first
number one. Also, it's credited to Bowie, Lennon and Carlos Alomar.
Carry on.
Bill
Brian Fried
"Bill" <batc...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3CF515DF...@attglobal.net...
> "Fame" reached number one on the Billboard singles chart, Bowie's first
> number one. Also, it's credited to Bowie, Lennon and Carlos Alomar.
"Fame" did not go to #1. According to Nicholas Pegg in The Complete David
Bowie (a must for Bowie fans everywhere), David's first #1 single was "Space
Oddity" in 1969 and his second (somewhat ironically) was "Ashes to Ashes" in
1980.
As for the writing credit, I was only pointing out that Lennon had no
writing credit on it, therefore it wasn't his song to take credit for. It
was written principally by Bowie (usually Bowie had collaborators) for a
Bowie album; Lennon was just the guest on the session.
Mike
<comi...@hotmail.com> writes:
>"Fame" did not go to #1. According to Nicholas Pegg in The Complete David
>Bowie (a must for Bowie fans everywhere), David's first #1 single was "Space
>Oddity" in 1969 and his second (somewhat ironically) was "Ashes to Ashes" in
>1980.
Being a Who fan, thought I'd mention that Pete Townshend provided background
vocals on "Ashes to Ashes" and played on "Because You're Young." :)
Mike
Bill
Brian Fried wrote:
>
> "Fame" did not go to #1. According to Nicholas Pegg in The Complete David
> Bowie (a must for Bowie fans everywhere), David's first #1 single was "Space
> Oddity" in 1969 and his second (somewhat ironically) was "Ashes to Ashes" in
> 1980.
"Fame" most certainly did go to Number 1 on the Billboard singles
chart. Pegg (and you) may be talking about the UK, but in the US it
went to Number 1 in September of 1975.
>
> As for the writing credit, I was only pointing out that Lennon had no
> writing credit on it, therefore it wasn't his song to take credit for. It
> was written principally by Bowie (usually Bowie had collaborators) for a
> Bowie album; Lennon was just the guest on the session.
Except that it always has the writing credit Bowie/Lennon/Alomar
attached to it. Bowie has said in interviews that he was working on the
words while Lennon and Alomar were in the next room coming up with the
music.
Bill
F5? Man Alive!!!
A very reasoned and reasonable response, Brian.
Of course it will be completely ignored.
"Brian Fried" <comi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ST7J8.6246$Sn2.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
F5? Man Alive!!!
Yet he DOES have a writing credit on it.
>
>
SWever
I agree, although why anyone would waste so much time and effort responding to
D. Larsen is beyond me. The man is so out of touch with reality he surpasses
even Francie with his vindictive agenda. Let the troll be, I say.
Stefan
dlarsson
> > no reason a fan "might interpret it to mean" that.
>
> Lennon was the leader who formed the band and took the lead in the early
> years, Lennon wanted to announce the breakup not Paul as that he had been
> the one to actually leave officially first... the implication is there.
Those statements (about Lennon) are all factually true.
They do not, however, imply that McCartney "was nothing"
or George "was nothing". There is no reason why
recognition of Lennon (for his unique role) should be
equated with or "interpreted as" the other guys were "nothing".
> > ... so any fan ought to
> > expect newspapers to "speak highly" of Lennon.
> > Why wouldn't they? .. and Why is that some kind of
> > threat to McCartney?
>
> The implication that John was this important figure who should be examined
> ran opposite the criticism that McCartney had stopped making anything worth
> listening to years ago.
Both those are two -different- things.
It turns out both of them do have validity.
McCartney during the 70s and 80s .. on the strength
of his solo music alone - simply blended into
the background of pop music .. with the Bee Gees
(if that) and Linnel Richie. People can have
differening views about the merits of Paul's
work ... but this has nothing to do with
whether or not John Lennon was an important figure.
Lennon's music and social change were quite often
linked - both during and after the Beatles.
Regardless of the perceived merits of Paul's
"pop" music .. that will always be true.
So again, recognition of Lennon has nothing
to do with denying Paul as a major contributor
and collaborator in the Beatles music.
> It threatened McCartney a decade later, as those who saw that juxtaposition
> in their formative years clung to it and spread it out through the world.
McCartney was always a multi-billionaire .. with
a huge fan base ... and strong albums sales
(regardless of how 'good' they were).
He was never "threatened" at all ... not the least
by eulogies about Lennon (which typically would
go out of their way to salute the John-Paul partnership.
McCartney actually got a lot of free publicity from
the tragedy .. due to his one-time close association.
> > No newspapers were saying
> > McCartney did not write "Yesterday" or "Hey Jude"
> > .. so there is no basis for your claim that McCartney
> > (or Harrison) were denied anything.
> > (The reverse is true .. as Pauls 'revisionism' illustrates)
> "Yesterday" and "Hey Jude," no. "Eleanor Rigby," yes.
I have never seen where Eleanor Rigby was credit
to Lennon alone ... never happened (especially
since Paul sings the song).
> A proper critical reading today would call
> all of Lennon's solo material if it were released today except "Give Peace A
> Chance," "Power To The People" and "Imagine" absolute garbage not worth even
> looking at.
"Beautiful Boy" garbage?
"Happy Christmas" garbage?
"Mind Games" garbage?
"#9 Dream" garbage?
"Instant Karma" garbage?
"Woman" garbage?
"Grow Old With Me" garbage?
etc.
I think Lennon's music holds up quite well.
In fact, things like "Working Class Hero"
actually blend right in to the modern grunge trend
in music today.
> > This -changed- after Lennon's death, partly due
> > to Paul .. using the Beatles (Anthology) and his
> > association with the Beatles (video clips, concerts)
> > to sell and promote every activity that he does,
>
> Yoko had the veto right on everything in Anthology. So did George. And
> Ringo. They didn't cut it as being false, or complain bitterly that it has
> too many lies.
True .. the main lies are contained within things
like "Many Years From Now" and these other "Paul documentaries"
that have come out.
However, the Anthology, did not select the best quotes
and interview clips available from John Lennon.
Lennon was a "good interview" (and quite funny).
However the Anthology did not represent him that well
in this respect. What was shown wasn't his best stuff.
In addition, the one single comment about Vietnam was
(from a 1966) clip where Paul makes some comment (something
like "we don't like it"). This is deceptive representation
because it was John Lennon who ruled over Brian Epstein's
strict objection to begin speaking out publically against the war.
This was his totally (Lennon's) initiative and initially
only George Harrison shared John's view - that the
Beatles should sound off on the subject. Lennon
was the guy who put his neck on the line and was
the "spokesman". It was only later on down the road
that Paul and Ringo would publically count themselves
in.
> Paul doesn't have the Beatles in any of his video clips. He uses them in
> concerts, but only when Beatles songs are played just like any other artist
> uses contemporary video footage.
Contemporary footage from 1963 and 1964.
I guess "contemprary" is a relative term.
> > But he had successfully fed upon Beatles nostalgia
> > to curry this outpouring of Beatlemania-like worship.
>
> So you, Derek, decide to see a Beatle live and do... what? Dig up John's
> corpse?
I don't know what this means.
I'm not interested in corpse's ... but
the point is Paul still markets himself
as if he "is a Beatle".
Neither John nor George ever did this.
They created their own indivual identities
and are remembered more for their post Beatle
personna then "being Beatles".
I think Paul will just be remembered for
self-glorification and being a show-business
energizer bunny who wraps himself in a Beatle blanket
for protection at every turn.
>
> > Well, he takes credit for John's songs, ideas,
> > and even goes to the absurd extreme of claiming
> > that John was "very square" and he was the
> > "avant garde" guy in the band (of course
> > an examination of the Beatles material proves
> > the exact opposite).
> You haven't read Anthology.
> You haven't read Many Years From Now.
I have read both of these.
I main criticism is of:
"Many Stories About Yesterday From Today"
(Many Years From Now) - which,
unlike the eulogies about Lennon,
invites a "comparison" between McCartney & Lennon
on a set of new terms - where Paul is recast
as the "avant garde" guy and John "the square".
Simply put, the book is a disservice to the Beatles
and their true history.
> You must think John was cloned to be both with Cynthia and being an
> experimenter at the same time.
Cynthia was an Art Student (Liverpool College Of Art)
right along side with John and Stuart Sutcliff.
She was an intelligent, artistic, creative,
sexually liberated person who, as time went on,
settled into marriage and motherhood.
Just look at the surrealism and wild expression in
John's cartoon drawings, writings, and drawings - and
it is clear at an early age that John was never
"a mainstream" type of guy. He was the first
British owner of the Mellotron (photos exist of
with it in his home studio - circa 1966) which
created many of the strange sounds you hear on
Beatles records. A quick examination of the
Beatles music (begining with guitar feedback
in "I Feel Fine") makes clear whose material
was strongly rooted on experimental concepts.
> > After Lennon's death .. he has become the used-car salesman
> > or Enron accountant of Music.
>
> He still has stayed out of the limelight.
You must be joking.
Just recently he did
- "The Super Bowl" (including halftime with Terry Bradshaw)
- Larry King
- Jay Leno (with the whole show devoted to just him)
and various other TV specials and concerts.
> > But McCartney never invented genres of music
> > (surrealism, psychedelic) that didn't exist before.
>
> Neither did Lennon. See Anthology for proof.
Music like: "Strawberry Fields Forever",
"I Am The Walrus", "Tommorrow Never Knows",
etc. did not exist (at least in the pop realm)
prior to John Lennon.
> > McCartney was never a political/social lightning rod.
> He is. Unless you think saving the planet and caring for the ethical
> treatment of animals are useless.
These were never controversial issues.
McCartney has never had to stare down and face
criticism or risk his career or popularity
for making such stands.
It's sort of like saying: "I'm for clean water".
No one is going to disagree.
Lennon was different.
He pursued causes, in spite of their controversy,
and in spite of grief and abuse it caused him,
and in spite of the risk of damaging his career
or losing popularity or looking 'naive' to people
- because he wanted to use his fame as a platform
to advance those causes - whatever the cost.
This was a whole different level of political acitivism,
and, in addition, Lennon created various "sound bites"
and songs in the process that are quoted internationally
and are themselves symbols representative of diplomacy and peace.
Time Magazine stated (1969) - after the Washington monument
rally (in which John's song was -spontaneously sung-)
"the peace movement now has its song".
These acheivements are part of John's history (rightfully)
and are not part of Pauls.
> > McCartney's was never an idealist preoccupied with the
> > plight of government, religious, and social injustice.
>
> He was concerned about music as a Beatle, and as a result we got four albums
> we would not have gotten otherwise.
> who kept the band
> going to produce some of the best music the band had ever -- namely The
> Beatles, Get Back and Abbey Road.
Lennon was a leading force behind the White Album
(he wrote 13 tracks .. even one he that didn't sing).
Lennon also kicked off the "Sgt Pepper" recording
sessions with "Strawberry Fields Forever" .. which
set the tone and atmosphere for those recording sessions.
Perhaps - you mean we would have never gotten
"Abbey Road" or "Let It Be" without Paul pushing
them back into the studio. That may be true,
however, Lennon never stopped creating music ..
so we would have likely heard: "Because"
and "Come Together" etc. at some point.
> > McCartney's words are not memorable or insightful
> > enough to be quoted and used as "sound bites" as Lennon's were.
>
> The only Lennon quotes even remembered by those
> who aren't devotees these days are the shocking ones.
I didn't know: "All You Need Is Love" was shocking.
I didn't know: "Life is what happens to you while
you're busy making other plans" .. was shocking.
> > McCartney was not the founder of the band and it's orginal leader.
> That doesn't make Lennon more important than McCartney,
Well .. he was the "go to" guy during their formative years.
His role was unique and yes John, Paul, and George were
all vital and all important - but Lennon was a more defining
member or architect of the band .. both what the Beatles
were and what they were not. The wise-crack interview
style, for example, came from John's natural personality
(this was not Paul's natural style). A lot of what
the Beatles represented has Lennon's personality stamp
all over it.
> > McCartney was not a legendary character BEFORE the band
> > ever got famous.
>
> Neither was Lennon. Where you pulled that one from I have no idea.
Read Ray Coleman's book ("Lennon") and, also, you even
get a little glimps of this from the movie "BackBeat".
Lennon was a notorious, hell-raiser, yet
intelligent, and very provocative even as a young kid.
Teachers loathed having him in their class - yet
couldn't help respect him.
Some of the stories about him from his Art College
days are legendary. One of my favorites is during
"still life" class there would be a nude model and
the students would all take a shot at drawing a
nude woman. All of the students turned in
detailed impressions of this nude woman sitting
in a chair. All the students drawing were
very similar. John's drawing was just her watch,
nothing else, no part of her body.
Everybody gasped when John's drawing was held up.
He had done the exact opposite - the watch was
the only article on the body of the (otherwise) nude model.
Concept reinvention.
This is a window into the -mind- of John Lennon.
Before the Beatles .... Before LSD ... Before Yoko
No one "taught" or "educated" John how to be like this.
That was just him (naturally).
He was always a genius.
He was always "an original".
> Nobody says they were equal in EVERY aspect. But they weren't more important
> than the other in terms of the Beatles overall, and that's where the
> distortion lies: Lennon is believed to be important and Paul not, and that's
> just not true.
I never said this.
I think both Paul and George were very important
to the Beatles.
I don't think Lennon would have been as productive
without having someone like Paul as his "partner"
(John always needed a "partner" .. even if just for support).
But there are intangibles and acheivements that
belong to John that don't apply in the same way to
Paul. That is how it was and ought to remain.
Paul has twisted around and taken the credit for
a lot of things where truthfully Lennon was the
dominant force. This is where my criticism lies.
> > George has only recently gotten the credit he deserves.
>
> And why is that, Derek? Oh yeah, he's dead. Again, you disprove one thing
> and use it against another.
George was always underrated and "unsung" all his life.
He was the "3rd guy" in the band and always came after
the other other two.
It is natural to list the accomplishments after
someone dies. This does not mean they are
"Martyrs" or "Saints". The accomplishments
did factually happen.
George did not "become" something after his death.
Neither did John.
The only problem is Paul wants to re-invent his image
and "become something" while he is alive and the
others are dead.
That's the true problem here ...
> > Lennon's accomplishments (song credits, Beatles, etc.)
> > were documented when he was alive (with no public dissent
> > or outcry then from Paul).
>
> Paul didn't feel like talking about the Beatles in the seventies.
Wrong, he did.
To a lesser extent than John .. but his words
were documented (refer to the book: Paul McCartney
in his own words or 'BeatleSongs').
> > The fact he was nearly thrown out of the U.S.
> > also is pertinent to the type of unique cultural impact
> > that Lennon had.
>
> I've nearly been thrown out of the US twice. Does that make me more a unique
> cultural import? Does it??
I'm sorry, were you part of a political vendetta
that involved everyone from J. Edgar Hoover to
Sen. Strom Thurmond to Richard Nixon's re-election
committee (intelligence operatives) to FBI agents,
the CIA, and the INS -??
... I didn't think so (but let me know if this happens)
> Paul doesn't claim to be the avant garde songwriter of the band. He claims
> to be the one who was most into the avant garde in the mid-sixties. He
> claims to be experimenting with avant garde ideas but didn't put them in the
> public sphere like John.
Which is like saying ... I hit a home run during
batting practice but -not- during the game.
Therefore - I'm just as good as Barry Bonds.
You have to evaluate the Beatles by their
recorded work, music, words, and ideas.
What they "claim" to have done .. (years later)
yet apparently was too unfinished or too
unsuitable to be on -any- album at any time
(Beatles or otherwise) ... really doesn't count.
It's sour grapes and/or image-reinvention
... not any kind of "acheivement"
> You're right, Derek: Paul should just admit he's a fraud, it was all John on
> every single Beatle track,
Of course, I have never said this.
Paul and George tracks are quite clear.
I have always said Paul was a irreplaceable
member of the band and very "important"
to the band.
Lennon, however, had a unique role and
a unique set of accomplishments - some
of them far different from Paul.
A fair rendering of history acknoweledges
Lennon's unique role.
Being dishonest about the Beatles history (Paul)
is a problem. Paul has his own accomplishments
to stand on. It is wrong of him to
swipe away Lennon's as him own to "enlarge" himself.
- Derek