To carve my niche in the edifice of time
Mister Charlie
I got older and I didn't give a rat's heinie.
Now I'm just old and the thoughts return to me...that I have accomplished
precious little 'good' in this life and I will be soon forgotten, as are
much of the human race. After I'm dead I won't care but...
I wonder if it's a natural thing to think about as one ages, and if that's
what Paul is doing right now. Thinking he would not be remembered for his
enormous contributions is a bit silly, but maybe the fear is he will always
be overshadowed by John because of his death. A very real possibility.
It's sad but true that John could indeed be more remembered in 200 years,
and Paul just relegated to his partner. It seems perhaps he is entertaining
these very thoughts, and with the normal human propensity of forgetting the
bad and only remembering the good, he may well be getting revisionistic not
so much out of greed for glory but a real fear of his mortality and knowing
he was John's equal. If I were he I would sure not want to be thought of as
a lesser artist and musician.
--
Underneath this flabby exterior is an enormous lack of character.
- - Oscar Levant
nowhere man
interesting post Charlie.
I guess we all go through often broadly similar life cycles.
Life is such a fleeting thing.....all too quickly it is over. I turned 21 in
what seemed like last week, now I'm within kicking distance of 40.
But fame is such a fleeting thing. I'll tell ya all a little funny story from
Friday. I called at the gas station in a village some 10 miles away. The young
girl (mid teens) came out and was putting diesel into my car. She looked
quizically at me and eventually asked 'who's that on your t-shirt?' I told her
that it was James Dean. 'Who's he?' she asked looking somewhat lost. I was
amazed at this lack of general knowledge and said 'you must know James Dean?
Did you never see his classic movies like Rebel Without a Cause?' 'Never heard
of it' she replies. I told her that he was around in the late 50s early 60s.
'Before my time' she replied. An unreal experience.
On another note, Camus graveyard is about a mile from me. It is said to be the
oldest graveyard in Ireland....and has some amazingly old headstones....the
entrance has a big pillar like stone from 700BC. I have been taking pics in
there this summer for a project that I am working on. I often would spend an
hour just going around looking at the details on the grave stones. It brings it
all home, that rich or poor, we're just the same at the end of the day.
Will
齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,
Bb Eb F Gm7
Distractions, like butterflies are buzzing 'round my head.
Eb F
When I'm alone I think of you
Gm7 Eb
And the things we'd do if we could only be through
F Bb Eb F Gm9 Dm7
With these distractions.
齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,
Mugwump
Mister Charlie wrote:
> When I was younger, I wanted to be famous so I would not be forgotten. Then
> I got older and I didn't give a rat's heinie.
>
> Now I'm just old and the thoughts return to me...that I have accomplished
> precious little 'good' in this life and I will be soon forgotten, as are
> much of the human race. After I'm dead I won't care but...
>
> I wonder if it's a natural thing to think about as one ages,
Absolutely.
> and if that's
> what Paul is doing right now. Thinking he would not be remembered for his
> enormous contributions is a bit silly, but maybe the fear is he will always
> be overshadowed by John because of his death.
Maybe so.
> A very real possibility.
Maybe so. I think Paul has the edge while he is living, because he still has
the ability to put himself in the public eye. But after he dies, John's legend
will probably overshadow him a bit. But I don't really think he has anything to
worry about. *The Beatles* will always be popular, as a group, regardless of
what they might have acomplished as solo artists. I don't think there is any
chance that Paul's contributions will be swept into the dustbin of time. He may
be concidered less influential than John, but many people think that already. It
could also be looked at in anothe way. John and Paul are connected at the hip.
If John's star rises in the future, Paul's star will rise too. That is my take
on it.
>
>
> It's sad but true that John could indeed be more remembered in 200 years,
> and Paul just relegated to his partner.
I really don't think so. They are not an obscure group. There are volumes of
books on them. It is not likely that there will be a shortage of information
about them in the forseeable future.
> It seems perhaps he is entertaining
> these very thoughts,
Possibly.
> and with the normal human propensity of forgetting the
> bad and only remembering the good, he may well be getting revisionistic not
> so much out of greed for glory but a real fear of his mortality and knowing
> he was John's equal.
I don't really think he *was* John's equal, but I see your point. You are
probably right. I imagine he is thinking about his legacy, just as presidents do
as their terms get close to being over.
> If I were he I would sure not want to be thought of as
> a lesser artist and musician.
I already see him that way, but I only see him as slightly less of an artist
and musician as John, at least during the Beatles era.
Let me ammend that. I think Paul had a more sophisticated knowledge of chord
function and music theory in general. He was probably more talented as an
instrumentalist too. I think he mastered his instruments to a much greater
degree than John did. His technique was more developed. But as far as depth,
regarding songwriting, I think John's songs were deeper on average.
But think of Rogers and Hammerstein, Lieber Stroller, and all of the other
great songwriting teams. They haven't been overshadowed by their partners, and
it is doubful that Paul will be.
MikeSo
awhile.
I certainly don't believe that Paul is doing any of his revisionism with the
intent to put his mates down, but truly because of his growing fear that he will
be little more than a footnote in lifes history. Although that seems ridiculous
to those of us here on this NG, it is a possiblity.
This would explain his interest in reversing the order of the songwriting
credits for "Yesterday" since this song is among a handfull (or more) of songs
that will remain with us for many, many years after we are long gone.
Very nice job of capturing those thoughts, Charlie.
Mister Charlie wrote:
--
*************
Mike
Sean Carroll
<cc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>When I was younger, I wanted to be famous so I would not be forgotten. Then
>I got older and I didn't give a rat's heinie.
I want to be famous, but not for myself. I know fame is a vehicle for
spreading ideas ... just like the Beatles did. And there are a lot of
ideas I'm just not seeing anyone famous spreading, so I guess it's my
responsibility to step in and add something to the store of general
human knowledge and belief.
--Sean
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
revolver
On a personal level, here's my little input on this. . .
I used to be on television in a very insignificant market (as markets go)
here in the lifeless midwest. I used to be part of a team called "Shane And
Andy On The Road." Doubtless that anyone here in this newsgroup ever heard
of us (and why would they?). It was quite inane in the grand scheme of
things, but it was a job, and it was fun at times. We were EXTREMELY local,
on the Fox station here. I created 30 second vignettes (sometimes 60 second
vignettes) that aired throughout the day, penetrating every demographic
group, featuring myself and my partner, Shane, galavanting around town,
promoting some upcoming event, interviewing local people, etc. etc. . .
.Since we did not have a news department, it was our way of "keeping in
touch with the community," to keep our name out there, and in the process
bring you the flavor of the town.
In the process, Shane and I became something of local celebrities.
Obviously, it was small and selective, but we were getting recognized
whenever we went somewhere, we'd get free meals sometimes, we'd sign
autographs - particularly with the younger crowd - and it was great fun. Our
thing was to be funny, create gags, being very visual and (hopefully)
creative in the process. Actually, it was stupid, but it was commercial
television, and we were geting some noteriety. We were even voted favorite
TV personalities in our city.
I was actually thinking that since we were getting quite popular that we
could build on this and possibly move on top bigger markets, or Lord-knows
what-else. I mean, we were signing autographs, for Chrissakes! This was too
cool, right?
My point with all of this is to say that my ultimate goal was to be famous.
I wanted to have my name known everywhere, from every castle and cave from
here to there and everywhere. . .Like many who are creative or artistic,
there was a need in me to have a legacy - something that would keep my name
alive long past my mortality - something that could be drawn upon from
others (not unlike many of us do with The Beatles, for instance). This was
all-consuming in me. . .
I worked eight days a week, twenty-seven and a half hours a day creating an
image for "Shane And Andy On The Road." Again, it was so local as not be
heard of beyond the city limits (or the cable viewing area), but we *were*
getting a name.
With time, I was getting bored with being that "wacky" TV guy. I decided,
after several "chaotic shoots" around town, that I did not want this
anymore. My wife hated that everytime we went to eat, we'd have a bunch of
"Fox Kids" viewers shouting out my name, knocking over water glasses on her
lap, or bumping into the kids. Believe me, my point is not to brag or
anything of the sort. I am way too humble for this to be a "bragging"
session, and this was too small of a deal and too silly to really matter,
but it *was* getting to be a drag. I just did not want to be "remembered"
(assuming anyone would after a week of being off-the-air), as that stupid TV
guy. Indeed, my ego liked the attention at times, but it was not my bag.
I quit, right after being invited to do some pretty cool stuff that very
well may have led to something a bit bigger. Who knows?
Now, it's a year-and-a-half behind me, and while I'm glad I don't do alot of
that anymore, I still have that deep need to leave something behind, some
sort of legacy. . . .I guess I still have that desire to be famous. I am
quite content with my personal life - wife and kids - but I am still hungry,
still searching, still creating, still making my nowhere plans for no one. .
.I guess it doesn't go away - and for me, maybe it shouldn't. I still
believe someone somewhere will dig my short stories that I am always
writing - or my album that is about two weeks from being done, or my boxes
of poetry and scribbles laying around. I keep trying, I guess.
I guess we all are a bit worried about our legacy - even someone like Paul
McCartney. It's easy to say that if I had written the material he'd written,
or had the catalogue he has amassed over his lifetime, I'd have nothing to
worry about. It's easy looking in at how we think it should be.
None of us are him, so we can't be completely fair in ascertaining how he
feels, or what fears he may have about how history treats him.
Personally, I think history will be quite all right to Paul. . .
I also think history will be quite kind to me, as well. . .
The only difference is alot less people will care.
:)
Andy
"Mister Charlie" <cc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9ia9u4$hhsja$1...@ID-63206.news.dfncis.de...
robertandrews
>I want to be famous, but not for myself.
I feel the same way about beautiful women -- I want to have sex with them
not for my own pleasure, but to impart my philosophy of love in the most
direct & meaningful way.
>I know fame is a vehicle for spreading ideas ... just like the Beatles did.
The Beatles were primarily musicians & songwriters, not philosophers. Their
fame came from their talent, ambition & success in the modern world. Fame &
even a touch of celebrity can be dangerous in the wrong hands.
>And there are a lot of ideas I'm just not seeing anyone famous spreading .
. .
I can't think of one.
. . . so I guess it's my responsibility to step in and add something to the
store of general human knowledge and belief.
Feel free to share.
R.A.G. Seely
> I wonder if it's a natural thing to think about as one ages, and if
> that's what Paul is doing right now. Thinking he would not be
> remembered for his enormous contributions is a bit silly, but maybe the
> fear is he will always be overshadowed by John because of his death. A
> very real possibility.
> It's sad but true that John could indeed be more remembered in 200
> years, and Paul just relegated to his partner. It seems perhaps he is
> entertaining these very thoughts, and with the normal human propensity
> of forgetting the bad and only remembering the good, he may well be
> getting revisionistic not so much out of greed for glory but a real
> fear of his mortality and knowing he was John's equal.
I think you've hit the nail on the head here, Mr C. Paul has never had the
"image" John has/had, and in an era where "image" is "all", that is a true
disadvantage. Among those dictionary quotes we had posted here the other
day, was there a one which put Paul ahead of John? I don't think so
(though I admit being too lazy to check!). I know that my own opinion
during the Beatles era was that I thought I preferred John over Paul, and
yet, when I sat down to list what were my favorite Beatles moments, Paul's
efforts seemed to dominate. (Big examples: side 2 of Abbey Rd, and the
"concept" concept of SPLHCB.) During the early solo years, I found Paul's
efforts embarrasing, but John seemed to embody the social and political
virtues I liked to like. But again, when I would proclaim what I thought
was essentially important in life (personal integrity, loyality to family,
"silly love songs") Paul would seem to follow all that more closely than
John. In a sense, Paul has always been for me like a friend one's hesitant
to admit knowing, and John has always seemed like the acquaintance one
tries to suggest is more intimate than is the case, because he's so cool.
Even today, it's hard to get past that incredibly powerful "image" John has
- to weigh these two guys impartially. My reaction is to avoid that task,
and to take each on his own merits as much as possible - I'm a fan of both,
neither is a role model, and both provided music I love. Together they
wrote a significant part of life's soundtrack!
Why do I "digress"? Well, because I think in part that what I describe has
some universal applicability - and that Paul is aware of that. Probably
more aware than is really so - remember that it is not infrequent that
someone who has been a great success fails to recognise the degree of that
success themselves, they often have an inner feeling that one day people
will discover how slight their achievement really has been and it'll all
fall away. I sometimes think Paul shares some of that feeling, that all
his "glory" could disappear overnight. That the power of John's "image"
will be all that's left behind, and he'll just have been a member of John's
group. Whether or not this will actually happen is probably irrelevant to
his fearing it, and that fear might well explain some of his keeness to
"keep (or set) the record straight".
Getting old is hell, as my 92 year old mother likes to say. I doubt Paul
is any happier about it than the rest of us boomers.
-= rags =-
--
To reply by email, use "@" not "__A@T__"
<rags AT math.mcgill.ca>
<http://www.math.mcgill.ca/rags>
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
Mister Charlie
"R.A.G. Seely" <rags__A@T__math.mcgill.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns90D8C749722CBli...@127.0.0.1...
And certainly I think that Paul, when all is said and done, will be looked
upon as the exceptional musician of the Beatles, whereas John will be looked
upon as the exceptional human...a larger than life yet real person.
Now if Paul can be happy with that, he should be at peace. If he feels he
has to be exceptional in everything, which is rarely attainable, he will
never stop spinning, and the only person he will fool will be himself.
Bonus round: The subject title...anyone know what song lyrics they come
from (I do know, yes, not desperate here).
Sixties Gen
fascinating. Anyone who tries to create, be it writing, painting,
composing, are usually doing these things to express inner feelings,
and one of those inner feelings, whether we like to admit it or not,
is to reach for something beyond mortality...to be remembered by
others outside of our small circle of friends.
I was quite taken by Andy's tale of his recent fame, albeit on a small
scale, and equally delighted by his statement that he still believes
others will one day discover the short stories he writes. Without
hope, an artist can not continue. I share that particular desire of
Andy's, to be remembered for my writings...and on a very minor level I
have succeeded, but not at the level I desire. I still keep plugging
away, and probably will until I no longer have any thoughts.
However, it's not fame that I seek. Oh, it would be nice, I guess, to
have people recognize you, and come up to you for autographs, but much
of fame sounds nightmarish, especially for someone who values privacy.
I have probably told this story in this ng before, but once, about 17
years ago or so, I was standing in line to see the new release of "A
Hard Day's Night" when this 18 or 19 year old college student
overheard me talking to a friend about having seen The Beatles in
concert. The college kid went nuts, oohing and ahhing, getting down
on his knees with an "I'm not worthy" motion, calling to others, "This
guy saw The Beatles!". I was amused and embarassed, but realized how
crazy it was that anyone was getting so excited just because someone
had seen The Beatles. I mean, it wasn't like I had done
anything...all I did was go to a stadium and watch(and occasionally
listen). All of a sudden, it dawned on me that if I was experiencing
this type of "fan worship" for just having seen The Beatles, imagine
what it must have been like to be The Beatles. It must have been
sheer terror for them at times, and I don't envy them that level of
fame...too frightening and restricting. Yet, Charlie and Andy, it
would be nice to be remembered, eh?
revolver
It would.
Indeed, it would.
Thanks!
Andy
Mister Charlie
teenager I burned for fame because I wanted the whole world to love me, I
wanted lotsa money, and most important: girls!
As I grew and got a girl and had a family, I wanted to be even just a
one-hit wonder in the rock pantheon...to have one song that people would
still smile at and sing to 10, 20 years later. But I didn't need the
acclaim that my teen persona lusted for anymore, I had personal acclaim in
my family. And my wife wouldn't let me keep the girls anyway (drat!). And
money has never been THAT important to me.
And now? Now I am beginning to see that all those years I figured I'd get
around to it someday have passed and the somedays grow short. Will I do
anything? Right now I still don't much care. Could be the Zoloft. :)
But since this whole middle age thing is brand new to me (us) I realize
things I never have before, find myself reevaluating life-long held thoughts
and creeds and finding myself maybe on the other side of where I had been
previously (or at least modify my wholesale approval/opposition to certain
tenets). And as death never held any meaning for me since it was always a
distant horizon, I never thought in terms of what reputation would live on
after me (but thankfully Marek is trying hard to make sure I'm remembered
for SOMEthing!) . But I am beginning to see a dim light of intelligence
dawn over the far cranial wall, and it occurs to me that Paul, who is ten
years older than I, may have already gone thru this thought process. And he
has so much, yet he has that much more to lose. So even though he IS Paul
McCartney fer God's sake, to himself he is just James. Maybe. ALl
speculative drivel, but perhaps a tiny clue as to his real motivation. I
just don't feel greed, desire to screw John, or any of the other things
ascribed to him hold much water.
R.A.G. Seely
news:4734803e.01070...@posting.google.com:
> All of a sudden, it dawned on me that if I was experiencing
> this type of "fan worship" for just having seen The Beatles, imagine
> what it must have been like to be The Beatles. It must have been
> sheer terror for them at times, and I don't envy them that level of
> fame...too frightening and restricting. Yet, Charlie and Andy, it
> would be nice to be remembered, eh?
It must be a very heady feeling indeed. Now, like Andy, I'm not
particularly famous (though google does return a flattering amount of
attention on a search for my name), but I can remember some occasions when
I could pretend otherwise: one time, at a dinner I was asked if I was "the"
Robert Seely - and the amazing thing is, that I was (at least, I was "the"
one she had in mind). On another occasion, a student I had just been
introduced to started to tell me about the work he was doing, starting with
describing an old paper by Seely which ... (account of paper skipped!) -
whereupon our host interrupted to ask the student if he'd heard the
introduction, since I *was* Seely. (Since then I have become accustomed to
this, since in fact the field I work in is relatively small, and I have
been around in it for quite a while.) In spite of one's attempts to be
modest, such moments do get the heart pumping a tiny bit, and I can only
guess how *real* celebrity can affect one's soul.
But add the usual self-doubt most of us feel at times, and you can see how
mixed feelings can grow in a celebrity's mind. I try to be understanding
when one comes across Paul's more "odd" moments...
Meagen AKA SailorM
"R.A.G. Seely" wrote:
>
> Among those dictionary quotes we had posted here the other
> day, was there a one which put Paul ahead of John? I don't think so
> (though I admit being too lazy to check!).
I'm afraid no dictionary will ever put Paul before John. M is
after L, and that's the sad truth.
Back to the interesting posts.
Meagen
--
IT'S QUITE THE NEW THING. IT'S BECAUSE OF THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE.
"What's that?"
I'M NOT SURE.
- Death and Sam Vimes, "The Fifth Elephant" by Terry Pratchett
robertandrews
>My point with all of this is to say that my ultimate goal was to be famous.
In the days of yore, only the pharaohs, kings & queens got to be larger than
life. With the advent of democracy & mass entertainment, anyone can stake
their claim to fame. It must be wonderful to hear your song on the radio or
see your face on the screen -- if you can put it in perspective. But many
people abandon their identity to the medium, even those who haven't much
chance at success. That's one reason why we say Los Angeles is filled with
"phony" people -- it doesn't take much for the person behind the image to
cease to exist.
Most celebrities I've met are insecure egomaniacs. They're indulged all
sorts of sins, because people are lusting for fame & money. I envy their
opportunity, but not their personal lives. For the more down-to-earth
celebrities, it must be nearly impossible to trust people. Some become
bitter & reclusive.
It's hard to discuss art & fame in the same breath, for art is just as
paradoxical as life itself. Like the cave paintings, art can be both
expressive & inquisitive; there are social aspects, but also something
highly individual (re: Nietzsche's "Birth of Tragedy"). Now that God is in
relative decline, it's hard to rationalize the role of the solitary artist.
For those who don't believe in miracles, hedonism or family life are more
valid than trying to reach across the universe to touch distant souls.
Did I say I believed in miracles?
Mister Charlie
"robertandrews" <robert...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Qpf27.15$hv1....@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
Saw Harrison Ford on Inside the Actor's Studio on Bravo yesterday. A famous
actor comes into the famous acting school and talks about their careers and
methods of acting.
This poor guy was like a deer caught in the headlights. He was so nervous
*I* wanted to give him a big hug and a cookie! LOL But as he talked about
how he approached acting and fame it was fascinating. He is an intensely
private man, yet at the end of the program when he took questions from the
audience, he was asked about how he reconciled his private and public life.
He said that he expects to give all to an audience, and demands it of
himself to be totally 100% accessible to his audience ON THE SCREEN. But he
says he has no conflict keeping the two separate...one is work, one is his
life.
He seems to be a decent, hard-working and VERY in control of his life. I
guess not all celebs are conquered by the fame and adulation but personally,
if it were me, I'd be the biggest pig ever born. The money, the sex, the
power...it is soooo intoxicating...well I ain't a christ...but I feel that I
can understand the mindset. And I respect men like Ford that much more for
it.
>
>
>