Paul on the record about ticket prices, drugs and Harrison
jen
From the Chicago Tribune
McCartney on the record about ticket prices, drugs and Harrison
By Greg Kot
Tribune rock critic
April 10, 2002
Paul McCartney arrives in Chicago for two shows Wednesday and Thursday
at the United Center riding a wave of good will.
The death of his wife, Linda, in 1998 was a tragedy he handled with
grace and dignity, and endeared the former Beatles bassist to the
public all over again. His re-emergence in recent months with a new
solo album, "Driving Rain," and a new love, his fiance Heather Mills,
has brought him back into the public spotlight. His frequent public
appearances in New York last autumn, in the wake of the Sept. 11
terrorist attacks, made him something of a beacon for the embattled
city. And now he's on his first tour in nine years, with 20 concerts
in 19 North American cities. Fourteen of those shows sold out within a
half-hour, even though ticket prices range from $50 to $250, plus
service fees.
McCartney, 59, has always been a forthright interview subject,
cheerfully immune to criticism because, after all, he's a Beatle! But
in a phone interview with the Tribune, as he dealt with questions
about the death of his old bandmate George Harrison; his relationship
with John Lennon's widow, Yoko Ono; his drug use during the Beatles
most creative period; and those unbelievable ticket prices, he sounded
particularly candid.
Q. Did George Harrison's death have any impetus in getting you back on
the road?
A. It didn't, actually. We were getting ready to tour around the time
the album came out [last fall], but then 9-11 happened. So instead of
going back to Europe and rehearsing for some gigs that we were going
to do, that turned into the Madison Square Garden concert [a benefit
for the New York City firefighters], which was the only appropriate
thing to do. It was dipping my toe in the water, to see if after all
this while, I still enjoyed it, and sure enough I did. It was a great
show to do. So we decided to go out for real. Unfortunately during the
buildup to that, George died. I suppose in some ways when you lose
someone important who you love, it reminds you to get on with your
life and enjoy it, because it doesn't last forever.
Q. Speculation has already started that this could be the last tour
you'll do. Is rock 'n' roll the kind of career that demands early
retirement?
A. I really don't think so. And maybe I should. But it's just not in
my personality to think of things like that. I'm not a worrier. I just
look at how I feel. And if I feel good, I think, yeah, that's what I
do. You're as cool as you feel, and I feel good, surprisingly good,
physically and otherwise.
Q. Why are your tickets so expensive?
A. I understand that's what you charge for these shows. I always say
to my promoter: What does Madonna charge? Ding! What does Elton [John]
charge? Ding! What does U2 charge? Ding! And they always give me the
ballpark figure. And that's what I charge. I try to get it on the
cheap side. This ain't Streisand. We're not trying to take advantage.
I hate to tell you, but I thought tickets were still at about $40. But
I'm from the prehistoric ages. I just let the promoters do that. I say
what do things cost, and they tell me, and I'm always shocked. Is the
suggestion that I should do it for free?
Q. No, but 40 bucks sounds like a reasonable figure. Do you need the
money?
A. I suppose I do already have a lot of money. But these promoters
have a living to make. And you know what, I really don't mind earning
money. I never have and I never will. I'm just an ordinary guy. It's
our capitalist ethic, and I really don't have a problem with it.
Q. A few years ago, your old friend and producer George Martin came
through town and gave a presentation on the making of "Sgt. Pepper's
Lonely Hearts Club Band." He flatly denied that the Beatles used drugs
while making that album.
A. George said that? Aww, noooo. George is sweet, but . . . I love it,
don't you love that generation? So sweet. I think he's being very
defensive and non-litigious, but it's not true. Those were the times.
I don't defend or attack them, it's just how it was. It's like saying
the soldiers didn't sleep with girls before they went off to World War
II. We all know they did. And so did we. George is a hip guy, but he
doesn't want to let you naughty journalists know we did naughty
things. But to give him the benefit of the doubt, [the drug use]
wasn't in his face. He was a grownup and you didn't do that sort of
thing in front of the grownups.
Q. Are you disappointed that radio didn't embrace your last record?
A. It was a bit of a mystery to me. I thought it was a good record. I
still think so. Programming has gotten pretty strict. Not many people
are allowed to play stuff that doesn't hit an exact groove. People are
making mechanical records to fit exact slots. A lot of boy band stuff
isn't made by boys, it's made by commercial men who know exactly what
slot it has to fit in. Mine fell between the cracks. It was a record
made because I wanted to do it. I'm not just easy listening, or
country or rock. I think I have my own category, and that becomes
difficult when radio is so formatted. I certainly wouldn't want to do
formula records. I certainly wouldn't want to be in a boy band. Well,
actually, I am in a boy band.
Q. Yeah. Except you play your instruments and don't lip-sync.
A. [Laughs] Yes, you almost have to apologize these days for singing
live and playing your own instruments. And they say they're dancing so
they can't sing live too. But Fred Astaire danced and sang. Chorus
girls did too. Were they fitter? The answer is a mystery. If I was in
the audience I'd feel a bit cheated if my man wasn't singing.
Q. When the tour gets to New York, will you invite Yoko to the show?
A. I don't know. I have no idea. We're not massive friends. We're not
friends, man. Everyone has a family, and sometimes your Uncle Eddie is
not your greatest friend. It's like that with us. Things have gone
down in the past for that to happen. I don't hold a grudge. I must
say, I don't intend to invite her. I don't mean it as a snub. You
invite who you wanna have there. That's what you do in life, man.
We've been talking about how life is short, and if I throw a party, I
just invite who I wanna have there. It's as simple as that. I don't
mean any harm to anyone. You invite people you're gonna have a laugh
with. We're not enemies. We're just not the greatest of buddies.
Copyright © 2002, Chicago Tribune
Rich Forman
> From the Chicago Tribune
>
> McCartney on the record about ticket prices, drugs and Harrison
> By Greg Kot
> Tribune rock critic
>
> April 10, 2002
>
>
>
> A. I understand that's what you charge for these shows. I always say
> to my promoter: What does Madonna charge? Ding! What does Elton [John]
> charge? Ding! What does U2 charge? Ding! And they always give me the
> ballpark figure. And that's what I charge. I try to get it on the
> cheap side. This ain't Streisand. We're not trying to take advantage.
> I hate to tell you, but I thought tickets were still at about $40. But
> I'm from the prehistoric ages. I just let the promoters do that. I say
> what do things cost, and they tell me, and I'm always shocked. Is the
> suggestion that I should do it for free?
>
> Q. No, but 40 bucks sounds like a reasonable figure. Do you need the
> money?
>
> A. I suppose I do already have a lot of money. But these promoters
> have a living to make. And you know what, I really don't mind earning
> money. I never have and I never will. I'm just an ordinary guy. It's
> our capitalist ethic, and I really don't have a problem with it.
>
> Q. A few years ago, your old friend and producer George Martin came
> through town and gave a presentation on the making of "Sgt. Pepper's
> Lonely Hearts Club Band." He flatly denied that the Beatles used drugs
> while making that album.
>
> A. George said that? Aww, noooo. George is sweet, but . . . I love it,
> don't you love that generation? So sweet. I think he's being very
> defensive and non-litigious, but it's not true. Those were the times.
> I don't defend or attack them, it's just how it was.
>
>
> A. It was a bit of a mystery to me. I thought it was a good record. I
> still think so. Programming has gotten pretty strict. Not many people
> are allowed to play stuff that doesn't hit an exact groove. People are
> making mechanical records to fit exact slots. A lot of boy band stuff
> isn't made by boys, it's made by commercial men who know exactly what
> slot it has to fit in. Mine fell between the cracks. It was a record
> made because I wanted to do it. I'm not just easy listening, or
> country or rock. I think I have my own category, and that becomes
> difficult when radio is so formatted. >
>
> A. I don't know. I have no idea. We're not massive friends. We're not
> friends, man. Everyone has a family, and sometimes your Uncle Eddie is
> not your greatest friend. It's like that with us. Things have gone
> down in the past for that to happen. I don't hold a grudge. I must
> say, I don't intend to invite her. I don't mean it as a snub. You
> invite who you wanna have there. That's what you do in life, man.
> We've been talking about how life is short, and if I throw a party, I
> just invite who I wanna have there. It's as simple as that. I don't
> mean any harm to anyone. You invite people you're gonna have a laugh
> with. We're not enemies. We're just not the greatest of buddies.
Another great interview to read. You couldn't ask for much more
honesty or self-awareness for the man. Like the music on his last
three studio albums, his comments in these recent interviews come off
as more mature, more direct, less self-conscious and less smooth,
cynical and calculated, than he did in earlier years. I think the man
hasn't been resting on his laurels at all, but rather has grown and
evolved into more of his true rock'n'roll self in recent years. It
seems like he's on a roll and the best may be yet to come.
richforman
> Copyright © 2002, Chicago Tribune
Brian Fried
"Rich Forman" <rfor...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:f354f363.02041...@posting.google.com...
> [H]is comments in these recent interviews come off
> as more mature, more direct, less self-conscious and less smooth,
> cynical and calculated, than he did in earlier years. I think the man
> hasn't been resting on his laurels at all, but rather has grown and
> evolved into more of his true rock'n'roll self in recent years. It
> seems like he's on a roll and the best may be yet to come.
To play Devil's advocate for a moment, it can still be viewed as calculated.
When Linda passed, Paul's unwillingness to share his grief with the world
every moment of the day created a reality in his public image that many --
including some critics -- have embraced. As a result, we're seen a Paul
willing to talk about elements of his personal life if it continues to make
him look more human.
Personally, though, I'm impressed with Paul over these past few years.
Rather than be the ordinary man and keeping in quiet, he's coming forward
and presenting himself as an ordinary man -- and that's made a big
difference in way he's perceived. Paul's the *living* legend who's survived
by not blowing his mind out on drugs or acting like an overage teenager (if
the two images are not interrelated, that is).
Johnny Savage
"Brian Fried" <comi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>To play Devil's advocate for a moment, it can still be viewed as calculated.
>When Linda passed, Paul's unwillingness to share his grief with the world
>every moment of the day created a reality in his public image that many --
>including some critics -- have embraced. As a result, we're seen a Paul
>willing to talk about elements of his personal life if it continues to make
>him look more human.
>
>Personally, though, I'm impressed with Paul over these past few years.
>Rather than be the ordinary man and keeping in quiet, he's coming forward
>and presenting himself as an ordinary man -- and that's made a big
>difference in way he's perceived. Paul's the *living* legend who's survived
>by not blowing his mind out on drugs or acting like an overage teenager (if
>the two images are not interrelated, that is).
I don't think it's calculated at all. A lot of people close to him have
passed on. His priorities seem to be changing in turn.
Jen, thanks for the great article.
Johnny
U-S-A!
James Red
news:5o0t8.7372$rp4.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Personally, though, I'm impressed with Paul over these past few years.
> Rather than be the ordinary man and keeping in quiet, he's coming forward
> and presenting himself as an ordinary man -- and that's made a big
> difference in way he's perceived. Paul's the *living* legend who's survived
> by not blowing his mind out on drugs or acting like an overage teenager (if
> the two images are not interrelated, that is).
I'm impressed with him too - and the fact that my interest in him has
been re-ignited in the past couple of years is partly a reflection of my
appreciation of his
recent intelligent, mature interviews. Although I always loved the guy,
I never paid that
much attention to his interviews because he always seemed a little
hyper, and not all that open about what he thought or felt. He would be
sort of charming and amusing
- but wasn't really going to give anything personal away. Now, he is
connecting, becoming a little more personal, and it is very endearing, I
think.
I think that he is trying to be open - maybe he does know that it works
and he does tend to say the same types of things over and over again -
but I think that he is
trying to communicate with his audience, and that isn't false.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
na
> Q. No, but 40 bucks sounds like a reasonable figure. Do you need the
> money?
>
> A. I suppose I do already have a lot of money. But these promoters
> have a living to make. And you know what, I really don't mind earning
> money. I never have and I never will. I'm just an ordinary guy. It's
> our capitalist ethic, and I really don't have a problem with it.
good on you, pauly!
now watch all the same old assholes flip their wigs over this statement.
"peace and love my arse! " ~ jim royale
Frannie
> >
> > A. I suppose I do already have a lot of money.
Duh.
> > Q. Are you disappointed that radio didn't embrace your last record?
> >
> > A. It was a bit of a mystery to me. I thought it was a good record. I
> > still think so. Programming has gotten pretty strict. Not many people
> > are allowed to play stuff that doesn't hit an exact groove.
Uh huh. He still surrounds himself with people who tell him everything
he does is magic... that you, Teddy? LOL
> > Q. When the tour gets to New York, will you invite Yoko to the show?
> >
> > A. I don't know. I have no idea. We're not massive friends. We're not
> > friends, man. Everyone has a family, and sometimes your Uncle Eddie is
> > not your greatest friend. It's like that with us. Things have gone
> > down in the past for that to happen. I don't hold a grudge.
Yeah, right.
>
>
> Another great interview to read. You couldn't ask for much more
> honesty or self-awareness for the man.
>
> richforman
>
Jesus H. Christ, rich, you really believe his beautifully spun
nonsense, don't you...
That's what makes horse racing!
:-)
Frannie
Insanity in individuals is something rare -- but in
groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule.
~ Friedrich Nietzsche ~
Mister Charlie
"na" <drunken...@nick.com.au> wrote in message
news:a92che$k9v$0...@dosa.alt.net...
who we all know is a master manipulator of the press).
DF# 45
"Mister Charlie" <wid...@angelfire.com> wrote in message
news:a92hk8$10intk$3...@ID-63206.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "na" <drunken...@nick.com.au> wrote in message
> news:a92che$k9v$0...@dosa.alt.net...
> >
> >
> > > Q. No, but 40 bucks sounds like a reasonable figure. Do you need the
> > > money?
> > >
> > > A. I suppose I do already have a lot of money. But these promoters
> > > have a living to make. And you know what, I really don't mind
> earning
> > > money. I never have and I never will. I'm just an ordinary guy. It's
> > > our capitalist ethic, and I really don't have a problem with it.
> >
> > good on you, pauly!
> >
> > now watch all the same old assholes flip their wigs over this
> statement.
> >
> I don't see how.
of course right thinking people wouldnt see a problem there.
but the nutjobs like franny and drek will go into a tailspin over it.
jbar
"James Red" <james...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3afd42d1adcc34edb65...@mygate.mailgate.org...
response mode, like a habit really. I have noticed a little loosening up of
late. He has always been a paradox. The engaging extravert as well as
private and guarded emotionally it seems. Obviously, losing Linda has been
a life altering experience. Approaching 60 and losing George is another I
would think. I also wonder about the influence of Heather. From
all appearances, she seems more outgoing, social, and open than the very
private Linda,
and this may help to free him up also.
Whatever, he does communicate, at least to me anyway, by his songs or by
words, in his own Paulish way. And he seems to be doing just fine. Looking
forward to his performance on Saturday.
Jan
Rich Zbras
"Frannie" <franc...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:b8bebffe.0204...@posting.google.com...
DF# 45
"Rich Zbras" <rzb...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:vR4t8.15513$8E3.4...@news02.optonline.net...
> Hey Frannie, you old bag. give it a rest
LOL!
jen
"Mister Charlie" <wid...@angelfire.com> wrote in message
news:a92hk8$10intk$3...@ID-63206.news.dfncis.de...
>
make a living, vs. saying, the road crew or band members. I don't think
fans have much sympathy for the promoters.
Mister Charlie
"jen" <jsn...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:a92nnu$tsu$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net...
Well, I took it to mean everyone involved with the show, not just the
promoters. But ten the promoters pay the "little' people, so there you
go.
I also see that as many tried to guess what his motivation only a few
were correct...he is not some garage band and his standing in the music
community demands he is at a certain level. Business pride, not money.
Interesting.
>
Whosbest54
franc...@excite.com says...
>
>Jesus H. Christ, rich, you really believe his beautifully spun
>nonsense, don't you...
>
It's one thing to say you disagree with certain individual statements in
certain interviews or to express your views of what these individual statements
mean to you, but quite another to say an entire article is nonsense. I read
this article more than once, and I don't think it's all nonsense.
I think you've gone too far with some of your recent comments on the articles
and interviews from this tour, and I've added something to my User Guide site
saying so. whosbest54
====
The flamewars are over...if you want it.
Unofficial rec.audio.opinion Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
http://members.aol.com/whosbest54/
Unofficial rec.music.beatles Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
http://members.aol.com/whosbest54/rmb.html
Frannie
> In article <b8bebffe.0204...@posting.google.com>,
> franc...@excite.com says...
> >
> >Jesus H. Christ, rich, you really believe his beautifully spun
> >nonsense, don't you...
> >
> It seems you're saying the entire article is nonsense. I don't agree.
>
> It's one thing to say you disagree with certain individual statements in
> certain interviews or to express your views of what these individual statements
> mean to you, but quite another to say an entire article is nonsense. I read
> this article more than once, and I don't think it's all nonsense.
>
You're jumping the gun again, whosbest. I disagreed with specific
parts (just like you said I oughta) and with richforman's global
acceptance of Paul's heavily rehearsed interview answers and newspaper
quotes.
> I think you've gone too far with some of your recent comments on the articles
> and interviews from this tour, and I've added something to my User Guide site
> saying so. whosbest54
>
That's silly.
And rather self-important of you. But of course it's your web site and
you can say whatever you like.
It's not going to change my opinion.
Francie
When men have gone so far as to talk as though
their idols have come to life, it is time that someone broke them.
~ Richard H. Tawney ~
Ehtue
>> good on you, pauly!
>>
>> now watch all the same old assholes flip their wigs over this statement.
>>
>
>You can't blame Paul for enjoying the 'American Dream', as they say. I give
>him credit for at least being honest about it.
Please someone tell my WHY Paul should not make money for his art? Is there
another artist in any field that would sell her or his works below market rate?
-Ehtue
jen
"Ehtue" <eh...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020411194814...@mb-md.aol.com...
about money....that their heroes aren't motivated by money.
DSF# 1
cue franny >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *
J. Juls
"jen" <jen_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:cd420a40.02041...@posting.google.com...
>
http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/chi-0204100007apr10.story?coll=chi%2D
leisure%2Dhed
> From the Chicago Tribune
>
> McCartney on the record about ticket prices, drugs and Harrison
> By Greg Kot
Wow, usually that guy hates Paul. He massively panned the last two tours
and their albums.
Julie
IBen Getiner
A. I understand that's what you charge for these shows. I always say
to my promoter: What does Madonna charge? Ding! What does Elton [John]
charge? Ding! What does U2 charge? Ding! And they always give me the
ballpark figure. And that's what I charge. I try to get it on the
cheap side. This ain't Streisand. We're not trying to take advantage.
I hate to tell you, but I thought tickets were still at about $40. But
I'm from the prehistoric ages. I just let the promoters do that. I say
what do things cost, and they tell me, and I'm always shocked. Is the
suggestion that I should do it for free?
What ever happened to 'All you need is love'....?
Just another ultra-capitalistic pig. He's probable storing up for his
future divorce from his young future ex-wife.
And yes.... he SHOULD do it for free. Why not...? He's had an easy
life, thankx to super loyal support of his fans (the same fans he's
screwing right now). Wouldn't hurt him a bit. As a matter of fact, it
might just set an example for the other money-grubbers he mentioned.
They all know who they are, that's for sure.
Q. No, but 40 bucks sounds like a reasonable figure. Do you need the
money?
A. I suppose I do already have a lot of money. But these promoters
have a living to make. And you know what, I really don't mind earning
money. I never have and I never will. I'm just an ordinary guy. It's
our capitalist ethic, and I really don't have a problem with it.
Why not charge 5,000 a seat at an exclusive club somewhere? A lot
less trouble, and he'd still make the same bread. He.... like all the
others who can't practice what they used to preach.... has turned out
like our parents.
And then there's the eternal question.... What would John Lennon have
to say...?
"The only thing you done was 'Yesterday', and since you've gone, it's
just another day".....
Ehtue
>> Please someone tell my WHY Paul should not make money for his art? Is
>there
>> another artist in any field that would sell her or his works below market
>rate?
>
>Yeah. Those artists' CDs you find in the cheapie bins at the music store...
>;>)
That would be the market rate, wouldn't it?
-Ehtue
Rich Forman
> >
> > It's one thing to say you disagree with certain individual statements in
> > certain interviews or to express your views of what these individual
> > statements mean to you, but quite another to say an entire article is
> > nonsense. I read this article more than once, and I don't think it's all
> > nonsense.
> >
>
> You're jumping the gun again, whosbest. I disagreed with specific
> parts (just like you said I oughta) and with richforman's global
> acceptance of Paul's heavily rehearsed interview answers and newspaper
> quotes.
>
Sorry, you're right, I don't scour these interviews looking for lies.
I just read it, enjoy it at face value and get on with my life.
richforman
Rich Forman
> Q. Why are your tickets so expensive?
>
> have a living to make. And you know what, I really don't mind earning
> money. I never have and I never will. I'm just an ordinary guy. It's
> our capitalist ethic, and I really don't have a problem with it.
>
> Why not charge 5,000 a seat at an exclusive club somewhere? A lot
> less trouble, and he'd still make the same bread. He.... like all the
> others who can't practice what they used to preach
But the key point here is that he never preached anti-capitalism or
socialism. None of the Beatles did. Paul (John too) has been
consistent on this point since we first got to know 'em, as it were.
("Will you song for us now?" "No, we need money first.") Paul
"preached" and seems to practice peace and love, but has never, in the
swingin' 60's or any decade since, denied being motivated by money
when he's making rock'n'roll (although of course at the same time he's
done lots of it for charity). If you yourself don't believe in the
capitalist system, you can criticize him (and pretty much any other
well-known rock musician who charges people for albums and concert
tickets) for that, but he's not being hypocritical or betraying or
contradiciting anything he's ever said or done before. He's saying
and doing the same thing now he always has, it seems to me.
richforman
Frannie
You're right. Paul was always more of a businessman than a
free-thinking artist.
John took another road, toward less commercial, more personally
satisfying music.
And he was called a communist, socialist, radical-liberal by more than
one politician/commentator during those fabulous Nixon years.
The question is, how does the true artist co-exist with the hardnosed
businessman? Can anyone really be both at the same time?
When rock'n'roll became driven by big business, during the early 70's,
something definitely went out of it - some say its heart. This is a
given. We're simply not talking about the same thing any more.
The Beatles and Stones and Who were the godheads of rock music. After
it became something else, Paul, being the best businessman, was bound
to succeed beyond even his wildest dreams financially, if not
critically. He was made for these times.
Second, after money ceases to be a motivation (In other words, when
the artist stops being "hungry"), does this necessarily mean the
artist's greatest works are behind him, and the "audience" should ask
no more of him than repetition, faithfully rendering the old classics?
:-) Cheers, richforman! Sorry I got testy withya. Have a great day.
Francie
je...@firemail.de
>
>The question is, how does the true artist co-exist with the hardnosed
>businessman? Can anyone really be both at the same time?
Why don't you ask Yoko?
eji...@eyex.netcom.com
> That's what makes horse racing!
And there always seems to be one old nag.....
eji...@eyex.netcom.com
> WHY? Because some people still believe in the 60's idealism that
> it's not about money....that their heroes aren't motivated by money.
Do you HONESTLY believe The Beatles would have recorded much of
anything if they hadn't been making money?
--
-Ed Igoe
eji...@eyex.netcom.com
> And then there's the eternal question.... What would John Lennon have
> to say...?
I bet he'd say shut the hell up "Getiner".
UsurperTom
>And he was called a communist, socialist, radical-liberal by more than
>one politician/commentator during those fabulous Nixon years.
Just because John was called a communist doesn't mean that he was one.
>The Beatles and Stones and Who were the godheads of rock music.
The Rolling Stones and the Who will be the first ones to admit they enjoy
making money. Out of all the rock groups that I'm a fan of, only the Beatles
(not the Beatles themselves, just their psychofans) cling to a phony mythology
about rock music being anti-money. Only Beatle fans demand that their favorite
rock group be depicted as saints in the history books.
>When rock'n'roll became driven by big business, during the early 70's,
>something definitely went out of it - some say its heart.
The Beatles were one of the first artists to be driven by big business. Why do
you think they formed Apple? Why do you think John and Paul wanted to own the
publishing rights to their songs? That's not a necessarily a bad thing unless
you want to live in Cuba or North Korea.
Usurper
lennon fan
Re: Paul on the record about ticket prices, drugs and Harrison
Group: rec.music.beatles Date: Fri, Apr 12, 2002, 6:19pm (EDT+4) From:
je...@firemail.de
The question is, how does the true artist co-exist with the hardnosed
businessman? Can anyone really be both at the same time?
and Jesse responded:
Why don't you ask Yoko?
slam dunk!
lennon fan
Re: Paul on the record about ticket prices, drugs and Harrison
eji...@EYEx.netcom.com
LOL! :))
lennon fan
Re: Paul on the record about ticket prices, drugs and Harrison
Group: rec.music.beatles Date: Fri, Apr 12, 2002, 4:07pm From:
eji...@EYEx.netcom.com
LOL! :))
Mister Charlie
"UsurperTom" <usurp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020412161235...@mb-cg.aol.com...
> Francie wrote:
>
> >And he was called a communist, socialist, radical-liberal by more
than
> >one politician/commentator during those fabulous Nixon years.
>
> Just because John was called a communist doesn't mean that he was one.
>
> >The Beatles and Stones and Who were the godheads of rock music.
>
> The Rolling Stones and the Who will be the first ones to admit they
enjoy
> making money. Out of all the rock groups that I'm a fan of, only the
Beatles
> (not the Beatles themselves, just their psychofans) cling to a phony
mythology
> about rock music being anti-money. Only Beatle fans demand that their
favorite
> rock group be depicted as saints in the history books.
Only Beatle fans? ALL of them?
Could you paint with a broader (and more incorrect) brush?
Frannie
> Francie wrote:
>
> >And he was called a communist, socialist, radical-liberal by more than
> >one politician/commentator during those fabulous Nixon years.
>
> Just because John was called a communist doesn't mean that he was one.
>
Duh, UTom. He strove for higher values, so he was castigated by the
establishment.
> >The Beatles and Stones and Who were the godheads of rock music.
>
>> >When rock'n'roll became driven by big business, during the early
70's,
> >something definitely went out of it - some say its heart.
>
> The Beatles were one of the first artists to be driven by big business. Why do
> you think they formed Apple?
You're asking someone who was there the first week they opened the
doors.
I know you're being sarcastic, but you seem to have forgotten the
actual reason: independence from corporate types in suits.
They were not only unable to get free, they broke up over differences
between them - were they shopkeepers and philanthropists and talent
agents? Were they businessmen first? No. Apple failed.
Before I finished working there, I heard a lot of discussions, but the
only point the four agreed upon was that the company should
concentrate on the Beatles, and it was already too late to do that.
They'd put on suits themselves, and that was one of the reasons they
fell apart.
Francie
Ehtue
>> The Beatles were one of the first artists to be driven by big business.
>Why do
>> you think they formed Apple?
>
>You're asking someone who was there the first week they opened the
>doors.
>I know you're being sarcastic, but you seem to have forgotten the
>actual reason: independence from corporate types in suits.
>
>They were not only unable to get free, they broke up over differences
>between them - were they shopkeepers and philanthropists and talent
>agents? Were they businessmen first? No. Apple failed.
Yes, but the point was they wanted the money for themselves and not the suits.
-Ehtue
DSF# 1
> They'd put on suits themselves, and that was one of the reasons they
> fell apart.
hey fraumply, is it true that Kellogs are suing you for unauthourised use of
their cereal packet philosophies?
Frannie
Why don't you douse yourself with gasoline, run on over to the
Reichstag, and light a match at the main entrance... just kidding! :-)
jweb
> Why don't you douse yourself with gasoline, run on over to the
> Reichstag, and light a match at the main entrance... just kidding! :-)
I'll bet.
--
-John W.
Download my comprehensive guide to "Beatlegs":
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheBeatlesArchives1/files/
jen
"IBen Getiner" <iapp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c6f07bc7.02041...@posting.google.com...
> > What ever happened to 'All you need is love'....?
Uh, the 60's are over. Wake up.
> Just another ultra-capitalistic pig. He's probable storing up for his
> future divorce from his young future ex-wife.
> And yes.... he SHOULD do it for free. Why not...? He's had an easy
> life, thankx to super loyal support of his fans (the same fans he's
> screwing right now). Wouldn't hurt him a bit. As a matter of fact, it
> might just set an example for the other money-grubbers he mentioned.
> They all know who they are, that's for sure.
He should perform for free because?? As Paul has said many times he has not
screwed anyone over. NO ONE was/is forced to buy his records, paintings,
poetry books or attend his concerts. You make it sound like Paul is taking
and not giving in return. From all the concert reviews I've read, every one
has enjoyed the show, says he gave a near-flawless performace - performing
for nearly 3 hours with no break. The price of tickets can be debated
(although I personally don't see anything wrong with charging market
prices), but no one can argue that Paul is not giving them something in
return for their money (e.g., a great show)
>
> Q. No, but 40 bucks sounds like a reasonable figure. Do you need the
> money?
>
> A. I suppose I do already have a lot of money. But these promoters
> have a living to make. And you know what, I really don't mind earning
> money. I never have and I never will. I'm just an ordinary guy. It's
> our capitalist ethic, and I really don't have a problem with it.
>
> Why not charge 5,000 a seat at an exclusive club somewhere? A lot
> less trouble, and he'd still make the same bread. He.... like all the
> others who can't practice what they used to preach.... has turned out
> like our parents.
>
> And then there's the eternal question.... What would John Lennon have
> to say...?
What, exactly did Paul used to preach?
Ehtue
>> >The question is, how does the true artist co-exist with the hardnosed
>> >businessman? Can anyone really be both at the same time?
>>
>> Why don't you ask Yoko?
>
>Why don't you douse yourself with gasoline, run on over to the
>Reichstag, and light a match at the main entrance... just kidding! ;-)
And you're the one who goes on about people even using the word "attack" in
light of the post 9-11 world. Sheeesh.
The kinder, gentler Francie. Rules apply to others but not you, eh?
What I think Jesse was saying was that Yoko is a hardnosed businesswoman (and
proud of it) as well as an artist (proud of that, too). Your apparent belief
that one can't be both at the same time is refuted by a person you've said you
admire. Jesse makes a good point.
-Ehtue
Ehtue
>He should perform for free because?? As Paul has said many times he has not
>screwed anyone over. NO ONE was/is forced to buy his records, paintings,
>poetry books or attend his concerts. You make it sound like Paul is taking
>and not giving in return. From all the concert reviews I've read, every one
>has enjoyed the show, says he gave a near-flawless performace - performing
>for nearly 3 hours with no break. The price of tickets can be debated
>(although I personally don't see anything wrong with charging market
>prices), but no one can argue that Paul is not giving them something in
>return for their money (e.g., a great show)
Bottom line is that Paul's prices are not high for top acts these days. I got
my tickets at $90+some for nosebleeds -- and I'm grateful for it. To be at a
concert for the by Paul McCartney where he plays for 2 and a half hours for the
price of, say, 5 CDs. Man! that's a bargain in my book.
-Ehtue
DSF# 1
> Frannie wrote:
>
> >> >The question is, how does the true artist co-exist with the hardnosed
> >> >businessman? Can anyone really be both at the same time?
> >>
> >> Why don't you ask Yoko?
> >
> >Why don't you douse yourself with gasoline, run on over to the
> >Reichstag, and light a match at the main entrance... just kidding! ;-)
>
> And you're the one who goes on about people even using the word "attack"
in
> light of the post 9-11 world. Sheeesh.
the hypocrisy of this woman is staggering
Frannie
Wow. I didn't think you were that thick, Ehtue.
The point was "creative control" and freedom. NOT money.
When they did get the money for themselves, they didn't know how to
use it to build their business.
Francie
eji...@eyex.netcom.com
> You're asking someone who was there the first week they opened the
> doors.
And then the business quickly failed..... Coincidence?
Ehtue
>> >You're asking someone who was there the first week they opened the
>> >doors.
>> >I know you're being sarcastic, but you seem to have forgotten the
>> >actual reason: independence from corporate types in suits.
>> >
>> >They were not only unable to get free, they broke up over differences
>> >between them - were they shopkeepers and philanthropists and talent
>> >agents? Were they businessmen first? No. Apple failed.
>>
>> Yes, but the point was they wanted the money for themselves and not the
>suits.
>
>Wow. I didn't think you were that thick, Ehtue.
>
>The point was "creative control" and freedom. NOT money.
You can't disagree with someone without insulting them, can you?
But, heh, yeah, you're right, I shoulda put that in, too. But they had creative
control of all aspects of their music BEFORE Apple. What they didn't have
control of was their money. Are you saying money had nothing to do with it? The
point was to be able to use the money generaged by their music success for
creative outlets in addition to their own efforts. And to build a "business"
where profit was not the motive.
>When they did get the money for themselves, they didn't know how to
>use it to build their business.
Obviously.
-Ehtue
Rich Forman
> > socialism. None of the Beatles did. Paul (John too) has been
> > consistent on this point since we first got to know 'em, as it were.
> > ("Will you song for us now?" "No, we need money first.") Paul
> > "preached" and seems to practice peace and love, but has never, in the
> > swingin' 60's or any decade since, denied being motivated by money
> > when he's making rock'n'roll (although of course at the same time he's
> > done lots of it for charity). If you yourself don't believe in the
> > capitalist system, you can criticize him (and pretty much any other
> > well-known rock musician who charges people for albums and concert
> > tickets) for that, but he's not being hypocritical or betraying or
> > contradiciting anything he's ever said or done before. He's saying
> > and doing the same thing now he always has, it seems to me.
> >
> > richforman
>
> You're right. Paul was always more of a businessman than a
> free-thinking artist.
I think he manages to be both. His music seems to come straight from
his heart, his love of music and of rock'n'roll comes shining through
all his stuff for better or worse. Then once it's made he wants to
succeed and get a big audience with it.
> John took another road, toward less commercial, more personally
> satisfying music.
Personally satisfying to whom? TO me, John was on an artistic slide
when he was taken from us. "Starting Over," "Woman," "Nobody Told
Me," "Borrowed Time," and "Watching the Wheels" are among the dullest,
laziest and least imaginative songs he ever came up with (on NTM and
WTW, arrangements that never vary from verse to verse and tempos that
never get past a mind-numbing Adult Contemporary groove); the Barry
Manilow super-corny key change on the Air Supplyesque "Woman," the
Beatles' key changes were never that lame).....MANY of Paul's
post-Beatles works are for me much more personally satisfying than
many of John's. Just being less commercial isn't in itself a virtue.
Besides, you know and I know that John too was interested in getting
paid, making money as a Beatle, and having popular hit singles. Like
Paul, he was both an artist and a showbiz rock star.
> And he was called a communist, socialist, radical-liberal by more than
> one politician/commentator during those fabulous Nixon years.
Well, those are some of the reasons we all love him!
>
> The question is, how does the true artist co-exist with the hardnosed
> businessman? Can anyone really be both at the same time?
>
I absolutely think so. With Paul, his artism (I think I just made up
that word but I like it a lot) continues in spite of himself. He
doesn't even nurture it consciously, but it isn't negated by his
business side.
> When rock'n'roll became driven by big business, during the early 70's,
> something definitely went out of it - some say its heart. This is a
> given. We're simply not talking about the same thing any more.
>
For me rock'n'roll didn't lose its heart 'til the early '80s. That's
when Paul's music started to really suck for a while too, but that may
be just a coincidence. But the early '70s? Come on! Led Zeppelin,
Yes, Allman Brothers, Elton John, etc, etc., etc.....no heart?
> The Beatles and Stones and Who were the godheads of rock music. After
> it became something else, Paul, being the best businessman, was bound
> to succeed beyond even his wildest dreams financially, if not
> critically. He was made for these times.
>
> Second, after money ceases to be a motivation (In other words, when
> the artist stops being "hungry"), does this necessarily mean the
> artist's greatest works are behind him,
What I'm wondering is, have you heard, or read the reviews for, Paul's
last three studio albums? These have gotten the most sparling,
near-universally complimentary critical reaction of Paul's entire
career. In Paul McCartney's case, I think it's more accurate to say
that his WORSE days are far behind him, the days of pap like "Say Say
Say" and "Silly Love Songs" (both of which I like a lot, the truth be
known but they're basically sheer pap nonetheless, whereas his stuff
from the last five years or so is much more personal, raw, expressive,
passionate, innovative, non-commercial, etc) seem to be long gone.
> and the "audience" should ask
> no more of him than repetition, faithfully rendering the old classics?
(Why the quotes around audience?) But no, you're right, pop music
audiences are too conservative and too strictly nostalgic in their
tastes, especially older listeners like those who make up the better
part of McCartney's audience. But given that, I think it's tough to
blame Paul or any other performers for appealing to their/our desires
and giving the people what they want. Paul's current set list isn't
too cutting edge but he's spreading a lot of fun and joy which is not
a bad thing. Personally I love fun, and I'm looking forward to
having a ton of it at the shows.
richforman
Ehtue
>(Why the quotes around audience?) But no, you're right, pop music
>audiences are too conservative and too strictly nostalgic in their
>tastes, especially older listeners like those who make up the better
>part of McCartney's audience. But given that, I think it's tough to
>blame Paul or any other performers for appealing to their/our desires
>and giving the people what they want. Paul's current set list isn't
>too cutting edge but he's spreading a lot of fun and joy which is not
>a bad thing. Personally I love fun, and I'm looking forward to
>having a ton of it at the shows.
I'm with you. I would be terribly disappointed if his shows were only new
music. I'm looking forward to hearing the "old standards" as well as the newer
stuff. Aren't concerts supposed to give people what they want? I should hope
so. When Paul Simon did his Graceland Tour -- with much exciting new music --
he also managed to thow in The Boxer from the old days. This is a good thing,
not a bad one.
-Ehtue
Frannie
> Frannie wrote:
>
> >> >You're asking someone who was there the first week they opened the
> >> >doors.
> >> >I know you're being sarcastic, but you seem to have forgotten the
> >> >actual reason: independence from corporate types in suits.
> >> >
> >> >They were not only unable to get free, they broke up over differences
> >> >between them - were they shopkeepers and philanthropists and talent
> >> >agents? Were they businessmen first? No. Apple failed.
> >>
> >> Yes, but the point was they wanted the money for themselves and not the
> >suits.
> >
> >Wow. I didn't think you were that thick, Ehtue.
> >
> >The point was "creative control" and freedom. NOT money.
>
> You can't disagree with someone without insulting them, can you?
>
Apparently, neither can you. Let's play Arafat/Sharon for a while,
shall we? ;-)
> But, heh, yeah, you're right, I shoulda put that in, too. But they had creative
> control of all aspects of their music BEFORE Apple.
Apparently, John and Paul didn't think so. Or they wouldn't have
needed Apple.
What they didn't have
> control of was their money. Are you saying money had nothing to do with it?
I may be crazy, but I'm not stupid. Paul was whining to me about still
not being worth a million in '68.
That didn't mean he wasn't absolutely thrilled to be coming up with
ideas on art direction, advertising and so forth!
He'd never had creative control in those areas before Apple.
The
> point was to be able to use the money generaged by their music success for
> creative outlets in addition to their own efforts. And to build a "business"
> where profit was not the motive.
>
Not the *primary* motive. Greed isn't the same thing as
profit-seeking.
In those days, they still thought ideals were worth something beyond
the bank balance.
> >When they did get the money for themselves, they didn't know how to
> >use it to build their business.
>
> Obviously.
>
> -Ehtue
So, we agree that their lack of business acumen was what made the idea
of the Beatles pursuing wealth by offering to help unknown artists a
nonsensical one.
Funny part is, they were sincerely interested in "being free" and
"Making It Better", not just for themselves.
It went nowhere.
Francie
IBen Getiner
> "IBen Getiner" <iapp...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:c6f07bc7.02041...@posting.google.com...
>
> > > What ever happened to 'All you need is love'....?
>
> Uh, the 60's are over. Wake up.
>
Yes, jen... the 60's are over. Now you can go back to sleep... if you
were ever awake to begin with.
> > Just another ultra-capitalistic pig. He's probable storing up for his
> > future divorce from his young future ex-wife.
> > And yes.... he SHOULD do it for free. Why not...? He's had an easy
> > life, thankx to super loyal support of his fans (the same fans he's
> > screwing right now). Wouldn't hurt him a bit. As a matter of fact, it
> > might just set an example for the other money-grubbers he mentioned.
> > They all know who they are, that's for sure.
>
> He should perform for free because?? As Paul has said many times he has not
> screwed anyone over. NO ONE was/is forced to buy his records, paintings,
> poetry books or attend his concerts. You make it sound like Paul is taking
> and not giving in return. From all the concert reviews I've read, every one
> has enjoyed the show, says he gave a near-flawless performace - performing
> for nearly 3 hours with no break. The price of tickets can be debated
> (although I personally don't see anything wrong with charging market
> prices), but no one can argue that Paul is not giving them something in
> return for their money (e.g., a great show)
So you think you're going to get kissed while you're getting
screwed..... Well, you may be right there. I guess that kind of money
isn't too much to ask for what you get... compared to picking up a
prostitute, that is....>
> >
> > Q. No, but 40 bucks sounds like a reasonable figure. Do you need the
> > money?
> >
> > A. I suppose I do already have a lot of money. But these promoters
> > have a living to make. And you know what, I really don't mind earning
> > money. I never have and I never will. I'm just an ordinary guy. It's
> > our capitalist ethic, and I really don't have a problem with it.
> >
> > Why not charge 5,000 a seat at an exclusive club somewhere? A lot
> > less trouble, and he'd still make the same bread. He.... like all the
> > others who can't practice what they used to preach.... has turned out
> > like our parents.
> >
> > And then there's the eternal question.... What would John Lennon have
> > to say...?
>
> What, exactly did Paul used to preach?
Did their message ever reach you, are what?? Try "She's Leaving
Home", for starters.
Off the top of my head, I can't think of many others from him that
deal with anything more than broken relationships or having fun. He
was the weak one, for sure. I always said that Lennon was the heart
and soul behind the Beatles.
You can go back to sleep now, jen. Sorry to disturb you...
lstoll
> eh...@aol.com (Ehtue) wrote in message news:
>>>>Yes, but the point was they wanted the money for themselves
>>>>and not the
>>>
>>>Wow. I didn't think you were that thick, Ehtue.
>>>
>>You can't disagree with someone without insulting them, can you?
>>
> Apparently, neither can you.
There was nothing insulting about what Ehtue said. -laura
Mister Charlie
"lstoll" <la...@lstoll.com> wrote in message
news:3CB8947...@lstoll.com...
Why do people even bother continuing to talk to this Medusa? She's
amply proven her intent here. Everything else is just static.
>
>
>
Ehtue
> > >> >You're asking someone who was there the first week they opened the
> > >> >doors.
> > >> >I know you're being sarcastic, but you seem to have forgotten the
> > >> >actual reason: independence from corporate types in suits.
> > >> >
> > >> >They were not only unable to get free, they broke up over differences
> > >> >between them - were they shopkeepers and philanthropists and talent
> > >> >agents? Were they businessmen first? No. Apple failed.
> > >>
> > >> Yes, but the point was they wanted the money for themselves and not the
> > >suits.
> > >
> > >Wow. I didn't think you were that thick, Ehtue.
> > >
> > >The point was "creative control" and freedom. NOT money.
> >
> > You can't disagree with someone without insulting them, can you?
>
> Apparently, neither can you. Let's play Arafat/Sharon for a while,
> shall we? ;-)
I insulted you? Where? (oh, and, btw, weren't you the one who just
recently wrote "Using the term "attacks" in view of what's happening
in the real world
only shows how distorted your sense of proportion is!" I guess
"attacks" is out, but the "Let's play Arafat/Sharon" is cute, eh?)
> > But, heh, yeah, you're right, I shoulda put that in, too. But they had creative
> > control of all aspects of their music BEFORE Apple.
>
> Apparently, John and Paul didn't think so. Or they wouldn't have
> needed Apple.
Well, that's circular reasoning, isn't it? Seriously, Creating Apple
didn't help them achieve any more control over their creation of
music. There wasn't anything they couldn't do at EMI. Well, they did
have to schedule the room and engineers, I suppose, but I've never
read any indication that that was any sort of problem. They didn't
even get to use Apple facilities until 1969 did they?
> What they didn't have
> > control of was their money. Are you saying money had nothing to do with it?
>
> I may be crazy, but I'm not stupid. Paul was whining to me about still
> not being worth a million in '68.
> That didn't mean he wasn't absolutely thrilled to be coming up with
> ideas on art direction, advertising and so forth!
> He'd never had creative control in those areas before Apple.
Yes, absolutely. I agree with you there.
> The
> > point was to be able to use the money generaged by their music success for
> > creative outlets in addition to their own efforts. And to build a "business"
> > where profit was not the motive.
>
> Not the *primary* motive. Greed isn't the same thing as
> profit-seeking.
> In those days, they still thought ideals were worth something beyond
> the bank balance.
Some of us still do ;-)
> > >When they did get the money for themselves, they didn't know how to
> > >use it to build their business.
> >
> > Obviously.
>
> So, we agree that their lack of business acumen was what made the idea
> of the Beatles pursuing wealth by offering to help unknown artists a
> nonsensical one.
No. Don't put words in my mouth. I think we could agree that they were
poor businessmen. I don't think the idea of pursuing wealth by
offering to help others is nonsensical.
> Funny part is, they were sincerely interested in "being free" and
> "Making It Better", not just for themselves.
>
> It went nowhere.
I don't see why that's funny.
-Ehtue
DSF# 1
you are both.
in spades.
Frannie
> franc...@excite.com (Frannie) wrote in message news:<b8bebffe.02041...@posting.google.com>...
> > rfor...@optonline.net (Rich Forman) wrote in message > >
> > > But the key point here is that he never preached anti-capitalism or
> > > socialism. None of the Beatles did. Paul (John too) has been
> > > consistent on this point since we first got to know 'em, as it were.
> > > ("Will you song for us now?" "No, we need money first.") Paul
> > > "preached" and seems to practice peace and love, but has never, in the
> > > swingin' 60's or any decade since, denied being motivated by money
> > > when he's making rock'n'roll (although of course at the same time he's
> > > done lots of it for charity). If you yourself don't believe in the
> > > capitalist system, you can criticize him (and pretty much any other
> > > well-known rock musician who charges people for albums and concert
> > > tickets) for that, but he's not being hypocritical or betraying or
> > > contradiciting anything he's ever said or done before. He's saying
> > > and doing the same thing now he always has, it seems to me.
> > >
> > > richforman
> >
> > You're right. Paul was always more of a businessman than a
> > free-thinking artist.
>
> I think he manages to be both. His music seems to come straight from
> his heart, his love of music and of rock'n'roll comes shining through
> all his stuff for better or worse. Then once it's made he wants to
> succeed and get a big audience with it.
>
Hmmm. I think you're talking about performance, rather than
creativity....
> > John took another road, toward less commercial, more personally
> > satisfying music.
>
> Personally satisfying to whom? TO me, John was on an artistic slide
> when he was taken from us. "Starting Over," "Woman," "Nobody Told
> Me," "Borrowed Time," and "Watching the Wheels" are among the dullest,
> laziest and least imaginative songs he ever came up with (on NTM and
> WTW, arrangements that never vary from verse to verse and tempos that
> never get past a mind-numbing Adult Contemporary groove);
Whoa! Borrowed Time wasn't on DF, let's start there....
But wait. Personally satisfying to whom? To JOHN, and to Yoko, of
course!
The more you go on, the more it sounds like you're describing *Paul's*
stuff...
the Barry
> Manilow super-corny key change on the Air Supplyesque "Woman," the
> Beatles' key changes were never that lame).....
"Woman" is one of the best, most loving lyrics John ever wrote. No
arrangement of it I ever heard reminded me in the least of Air Supply!
John wasn't trying to sound Beatle-esque (although there are definite
similarities in the chord changes... ) "Beautiful Boy" is
excruciatingly tender.
"WTW" is relaxed and has a light-hearted philosophical tone. How
about "Starting Over"? You think it's lazy and unimaginative?
Have you been reading Seaman again?
MANY of Paul's
> post-Beatles works are for me much more personally satisfying than
> many of John's. Just being less commercial isn't in itself a virtue.
>
I think it's the other way round. We *know* Paul finds such gems as
"Freedom" and "Rinse the Raindrops" personally satisfying... but he
doesn't seem to care if the lyrics are insipid and the melodies
instantly forgettable... again, I think you're talking about
performance, not content. Paul's ability to put on a show is
unassailable.
But as far as your next statement - absolutely true but applied it to
Paul, not John. Paul's tunes are perfectly commercial pap. Not a
virtue.
> Besides, you know and I know that John too was interested in getting
> paid, making money as a Beatle, and having popular hit singles. Like
> Paul, he was both an artist and a showbiz rock star.
>
Paul is not an artist "like John was". John was not a "showbiz rock
star" after he left the Beatles. It's fairly well known that without
Yoko's strengths as a financial manager, John could have gone broke
within another ten years (notwithstanding Anthology profits, of
course).
> > And he was called a communist, socialist, radical-liberal by more than
> > one politician/commentator during those fabulous Nixon years.
>
> Well, those are some of the reasons we all love him!
>
> >
> > The question is, how does the true artist co-exist with the hardnosed
> > businessman? Can anyone really be both at the same time?
> >
>
> I absolutely think so. With Paul, his artism (I think I just made up
> that word but I like it a lot) continues in spite of himself.
LOL! I think Paul invented "artism" to cloak himself in John's risky
aura. He's definitely tapped out creatively. He was *never*
artistically edgy or avant garde, and that's the fact, no matter how
much he protests. "Silly Love Songs" is the romantic young adult
classic. Sentiment is fine in its place, but please don't tell me
it's art.
He
> doesn't even nurture it consciously, but it isn't negated by his
> business side.
>
If you believe that, I have a two inch square bedsheet I'd like to
sell you...
> > When rock'n'roll became driven by big business, during the early 70's,
> > something definitely went out of it - some say its heart. This is a
> > given. We're simply not talking about the same thing any more.
> >
>
> For me rock'n'roll didn't lose its heart 'til the early '80s. That's
> when Paul's music started to really suck for a while too, but that may
> be just a coincidence. But the early '70s? Come on! Led Zeppelin,
> Yes, Allman Brothers, Elton John, etc, etc., etc.....no heart?
>
Allmans (had they not started killing themselves in the early 70's)
were fine blues performers, but they too were performers more than
creators.
I'm surprised you think Zep had heart... they had balls, fer shure,
but in the context of a discussion about Beatle level art? Sorry.
Elton? Sorry, but I believe Elton/Bernie were practically 70's
icons... the second tier as far as creativity goes. Why do you think
he ended up making back his fortune on the back of Disney Studios?
Crass!
> > The Beatles and Stones and Who were the godheads of rock music. After
> > it became something else, Paul, being the best businessman, was bound
> > to succeed beyond even his wildest dreams financially, if not
> > critically. He was made for these times.
> >
> > Second, after money ceases to be a motivation (In other words, when
> > the artist stops being "hungry"), does this necessarily mean the
> > artist's greatest works are behind him,
>
> What I'm wondering is, have you heard, or read the reviews for, Paul's
> last three studio albums?
Yes. I see that the critics are admiring his energy. Nobody's saying
these songs measure up to Beatle standards. Again, it's the delivery
of material reminiscent of earlier "good stuff", combined with the
realization that half the Beatles are gone. I've also read some
"customer reviews" that don't go along with the critics. Remember, RS
gave Mick Jagger's solo 4 stars. They had more good things to say
about it than they said about Paul's.
These have gotten the most sparling,
> near-universally complimentary critical reaction of Paul's entire
> career.
They weren't quite as kind since "Flaming Pie". His entire career?
Piece of cake. What are you gonna do? Write a bad review and have the
guy never speak to your magazine again? LOL!
In Paul McCartney's case, I think it's more accurate to say
> that his WORSE days are far behind him,
People are praying that's true, but looks to me like his worst days as
a writer/artist are AHEAD of him. We both know he won't be able to
resist putting together another album (let's hope he spends more than
three weeks producing this next one), hoping for something more than
respectful appreciation from the mainstream pop critics, and he'll be
just as surprised when none of the singles makes top 50 on the
charts...
the days of pap like "Say Say
> Say" and "Silly Love Songs" (both of which I like a lot, the truth be
> known but they're basically sheer pap nonetheless, whereas his stuff
> from the last five years or so is much more personal, raw, expressive,
> passionate, innovative, non-commercial, etc) seem to be long gone.
>
Dammit. You used "pap" first! If RDR sounded raw to you - it sounded
sloppy and derivative to me (the originals, I mean).
Please tell me one lyric from DR that impressed you as more personal,
innovative than his early post-Beatle stuff... honestly, I've seen the
lyrics and for the life of me can't see anything passionate about
them. "Maybe I'm Amazed" was passionate and raw. It still is. "Here
There and Everywhere" was personal, expressive... and "Hey Jude"
expressed more personal longing than any other song he wrote (yeah,
I'm biased :-)).
And remember, I adore "After the Ball" - it's his best post-Beatle
screamer imo. But I cannot stand "SSS" or "SLS". Not my thing is all.
>
> > and the "audience" should ask
> > no more of him than repetition, faithfully rendering the old classics?
>
> (Why the quotes around audience?) But no, you're right, pop music
> audiences are too conservative and too strictly nostalgic in their
> tastes, especially older listeners like those who make up the better
> part of McCartney's audience. But given that, I think it's tough to
> blame Paul or any other performers for appealing to their/our desires
> and giving the people what they want. Paul's current set list isn't
> too cutting edge but he's spreading a lot of fun and joy which is not
> a bad thing. Personally I love fun, and I'm looking forward to
> having a ton of it at the shows.
>
> richforman
I used the quotes for sarcastic reasons, because I believe Paul is
working to a *market* rather than audiences. He has put up some
barriers (out of necessity) between himself and his conservative
middle aged concert-goers. His songs are never revelatory, never go
deeper than a smile. His interviews are as vague and uninteresting as
his lyrics. He's never questioning himself about anything he puts out,
because it's doing great business. He's a fantastic businessman!
But you're right about fun and joy. He has the gift of manufacturing
it, perpetuating his own personal joy in performing, which is a craft
much more than an art. When he was asked why he's touring now instead
of immersing himself in his new romantic life, tellingly, he said "For
my own fun" (words to that effect). Like I said before, away from
that live audience, the art disappears, and for Paul, the fun, too.
You're right - McCartney concerts are for fun. Give em 2/3 Beatles and
Wings, 1/3 his casual new product, no warmup act to distract from the
nostalgic aura, and he's giving them what they want... which is not to
think or be challenged, not to be taken anywhere they've not been
before, and certainly not to reflect on society the way so much great
art does.
Hey, thanks for the stimulating discourse! And I'm sure you'll enjoy
the show as much as you anticipate...
;-)
Frannie
DSF# 1
> The more you go on, the more it sounds like you're describing *Paul's*
> stuff...
that's only because you are so demented.
> Have you been reading Seaman again?
have you been swallowing semen again?
> Hey, thanks for the stimulating discourse! And I'm sure you'll enjoy
> the show as much as you anticipate...
just how brown can your nose get, franny?
lstoll
> rfor...@optonline.net (Rich Forman) wrote
>>What I'm wondering is, have you heard, or read the reviews for,
>>Paul's last three studio albums? These have gotten the most sparkling,
>>near-universally complimentarycritical reaction of Paul's entire
>>career.
>
> They weren't quite as kind since "Flaming Pie". His entire career?
> Piece of cake. What are you gonna do? Write a bad review and have
> the guy never speak to your magazine again? LOL!
Huh? Are you saying the main reason he gets some good reviews is so he won't refuse to talk to the magazines that give them? How do you explain the *bad* reviews he's gotten?
And do you have some stats to show a trend wherein he doesn't talk to magazines that have given him bum reviews?
> But you're right about fun and joy. He has the gift of manufacturing
> it, perpetuating his own personal joy in performing, which is a craft
> much more than an art. When he was asked why he's touring now
> instead of immersing himself in his new romantic life, tellingly, he said
> "For my own fun" (words to that effect). Like I said before, away from
> that live audience, the art disappears, and for Paul, the fun, too.
If that's true he sure spends some big chunks of time not having any art.
Or any fun. Poor guy. -laura
DSF# 1
> Frannie wrote:
>Like I said before, away from
> > that live audience, the art disappears, and for Paul, the fun, too.
LOL!
and how does a demented old shithead like you know this?
Mister Charlie
"jb" <jbald...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:jbaldwin223-73B0...@nnrp02.earthlink.net...
> In article <b8bebffe.02041...@posting.google.com>,
> franc...@excite.com (Battered Old Bird) wrote 243 lines of
desperate,
> anti-McCartney smears:
>
> wow...it's pretty clear that McCartney's currently heightened media
> exposure is just too much for Frannie's eggshell sanity to take. i
> imagine she had to wipe the spittle and froth off her monitor, after
> wrapping up this latest poison-pen epic.
>
> of course, she'll claim her criticisms are totally fair and unbiased,
> and that no maniacal, personal grudges are involved. riiiight. and i'm
> sure she'll defend her "objectivity" by citing
> insults-disguised-as-compliments such as "perfectly commercial pap,"
> "romantic young adult classic," "fantastic businessman," "the gift of
> manufacturing fun and joy," etc. i find it especially telling that
> Frannie strained to abuse Paul for saying he's touring "for fun."
> somehow, she wants to convince us that enjoying touring represents
some
> fatal personality flaw. of course, if Paul had said he was touring
"for
> the money," she would've quickly shifted to a different angle of
attack.
> really, i can't imagine there was -any- possible answer to that
question
> which she wouldn't have leaped on with carnivorous zeal. if he said
"for
> the fans," then she would attack his narcissistic need for an
> audience...if he said "to prove i can still rock," she would've
attacked
> his insecurity about others' opinions. really, there's only one way
she
> would praise the tour: if Paul suddenly decides the concession stands
> should start selling copies of that thin groupie memoir Body Count,
> there's no doubt in my mind that Frannie would abruptly start praising
> McCartney's resilience, longevity, blahblahblah with equal tenacity.
she
> has no internal morals whatsoever -- her opinions of people are
> determined only based on who's currently providing her with ego
strokes.
> disgusting. i guess that's the lesson which Whosbest54 learned, this
> week.
well, jb, when you're right, you're right.
Frannie
>
>
> well, jb, when you're right, you're right.
When you're an asshole, you're an asshole, Charlie.
By quoting the rant of a troll with a slightly larger vocabulary than
your own, you got me to read it.
I think it's grand you've found each other.
Perhaps you'll find some sort of consolation in making jb feel like
he's really contributing something to this group.
Good to see you finding new ways to pleasure yourself... when real
life fails, there's nothing quite like sharing personal hatreds with
another cranky shut-in!
Francie (LOL!)
JLW44
>life fails, there's nothing quite like sharing personal hatreds with
>another cranky shut-in!
>
>Francie (LOL!)
>
Amazing the irony here!
Mister Charlie
> In article <b8bebffe.02041...@posting.google.com>,
> franc...@excite.com (Frannie) wrote:
>
> > When you're an asshole, you're an asshole, Charlie.
> >
> > By quoting the rant of a troll with a slightly larger vocabulary
than
> > your own, you got me to read it.
> >
> > I think it's grand you've found each other.
> >
> > Perhaps you'll find some sort of consolation in making jb feel like
> > he's really contributing something to this group.
> >
> > Good to see you finding new ways to pleasure yourself... when real
> > life fails, there's nothing quite like sharing personal hatreds with
> > another cranky shut-in!
>
>
> well, i'll take the generic, lamebrained, typically hypocritical
"you're
> a troll" reply as an confirmation that there was nothing in my
previous
> post which you could dispute.
>
> couldn't you be honest with yourself for just -one- day? do you -ever-
> have any lucid moments of clarity anymore? please read your last 50 or
> so posts, and ask yourself what -you- "contribute" to this newsgroup
> beyond pathetic vengefulness, hatred, bitterness and lunacy. and
before
> you try to label me a "ranting troll," please re-read the frothing,
> deranged 243-line spew you last posted in this thread. that post alone
> would be enough make almost anyone wonder why you're not
> institutionalized.
well, jb, when you're right.....
LOL!
DSF# 1
> In article <b8bebffe.02041...@posting.google.com>,
> franc...@excite.com (Frannie) wrote:
>
> > When you're an asshole, you're an asshole, Charlie.
> >
> > By quoting the rant of a troll with a slightly larger vocabulary than
> > your own, you got me to read it.
> >
> > I think it's grand you've found each other.
> >
> > Perhaps you'll find some sort of consolation in making jb feel like
> > he's really contributing something to this group.
> >
> > Good to see you finding new ways to pleasure yourself... when real
> > life fails, there's nothing quite like sharing personal hatreds with
> > another cranky shut-in!
>
>
> well, i'll take the generic, lamebrained, typically hypocritical "you're
> a troll" reply as an confirmation that there was nothing in my previous
> post which you could dispute.
>
> couldn't you be honest with yourself for just -one- day? do you -ever-
> have any lucid moments of clarity anymore? please read your last 50 or
> so posts, and ask yourself what -you- "contribute" to this newsgroup
> beyond pathetic vengefulness, hatred, bitterness and lunacy. and before
> you try to label me a "ranting troll," please re-read the frothing,
> deranged 243-line spew you last posted in this thread. that post alone
> would be enough make almost anyone wonder why you're not
> institutionalized.
LOL! great post jb!
Sir Barb
> >
> > "na" <drunken...@nick.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:a92che$k9v$0...@dosa.alt.net...
> > >
> > >
> > > > Q. No, but 40 bucks sounds like a reasonable figure. Do you need the
> > > > money?
> > > >
> > > > A. I suppose I do already have a lot of money. But these promoters
> > > > have a living to make. And you know what, I really don't mind
> > earning
> > > > money. I never have and I never will. I'm just an ordinary guy. It's
> > > > our capitalist ethic, and I really don't have a problem with it.
> > >
> > >
> > > now watch all the same old assholes flip their wigs over this
> > statement.
> > >
> > I don't see how. Seemed pretty forthright to me (especially for Paul,
> > who we all know is a master manipulator of the press).
> >
> I was surprised that he said the promoters (e.g. Clear Channel) have to
> make a living, vs. saying, the road crew or band members. I don't think
> fans have much sympathy for the promoters.
>
The promoters set the price and pay the crew etc... BTW, Paul's promoter is
Barry Marshall of Marshall Arts.
Rich Forman
> rfor...@optonline.net (Rich Forman) wrote in message > >
>
> creativity....
>
I'm talking about the whole package. Sound, performance, energy, band
vibe, emotional content ("Lonely Road" and "From a Lover" have this in
spades IMO, albeit delivered somewhat ambiguously, probably even to
the writer), melody/chord changes and that elusive rock'n'roll thing,
which is undefinable but I know when I hear, and is way all over Run
Devil Run...not just lyrics, which it sounds from your post is all you
go by.
I judge rock more by the sound and the rockingness of it. Paul's
"Letting Go"'s lyrics are neglible, "Beware My Love" even worse ("the
sound of his thunder"? ugh!), but they're both all-time great songs
nevertheless IMO for the sound, the passionate crunch, the vocals,
guitars and the groove.
> > > John took another road, toward less commercial, more personally
> > > satisfying music.
> >
> > Personally satisfying to whom? TO me, John was on an artistic slide
> > when he was taken from us. "Starting Over," "Woman," "Nobody Told
> > Me," "Borrowed Time," and "Watching the Wheels" are among the dullest,
> > laziest and least imaginative songs he ever came up with (on NTM and
> > WTW, arrangements that never vary from verse to verse and tempos that
> > never get past a mind-numbing Adult Contemporary groove);
>
> Whoa! Borrowed Time wasn't on DF, let's start there....
>
Didn't say it was, but it still sucks.
> But wait. Personally satisfying to whom? To JOHN, and to Yoko, of
> course!
>
So that's the goal, rather than for the music to give joy and
excitement to me? If so, then I'm sure you're right, DF and M&H are
tops.
> The more you go on, the more it sounds like you're describing *Paul's*
> stuff...
>
>
> the Barry
> > Manilow super-corny key change on the Air Supplyesque "Woman," the
> > Beatles' key changes were never that lame).....
>
> "Woman" is one of the best, most loving lyrics John ever wrote.
An ubelievable claim. Strictly all matters of opinion of course.
(Most loving? Sure. And I'm positive you also give Paul equal credit
for his many very loving lyrics to Linda and now to Heather. But -
Best lyrics he ever wrote? Are you serious?)
> No
> arrangement of it I ever heard reminded me in the least of Air Supply!
> John wasn't trying to sound Beatle-esque (although there are definite
> similarities in the chord changes... ) "Beautiful Boy" is
> excruciatingly tender.
"Excruciating" I'll go along with. Why is McCartney raked over the
coals for being "sentinmental" when if it's Lennon it's "tender"? I
know John loved his son but this song could have just stayed private
between the two of them for my money.
> "WTW" is relaxed and has a light-hearted philosophical tone. How
> about "Starting Over"? You think it's lazy and unimaginative?
>
I don't admire it at all.
> Have you been reading Seaman again?
>
> >MANY of Paul's
> > post-Beatles works are for me much more personally satisfying than
> > many of John's. Just being less commercial isn't in itself a virtue.
> >
>
> I think it's the other way round. We *know* Paul finds such gems as
> "Freedom" and "Rinse the Raindrops" personally satisfying... but he
> doesn't seem to care if the lyrics are insipid and the melodies
> instantly forgettable... again, I think you're talking about
> performance, not content.
Yes, I'm talking about how the record comes out when they're done
making it, and whether or not I like it, and if so, how much.
>
> > Besides, you know and I know that John too was interested in getting
> > paid, making money as a Beatle, and having popular hit singles. Like
> > Paul, he was both an artist and a showbiz rock star.
> >
>
> Paul is not an artist "like John was". John was not a "showbiz rock
> star" after he left the Beatles. It's fairly well known that without
> Yoko's strengths as a financial manager, John could have gone broke
> within another ten years (notwithstanding Anthology profits, of
> course).
>
These sentences sound like they're flown in from another conversation
somewhere.
> > > And he was called a communist, socialist, radical-liberal by more than
> > > one politician/commentator during those fabulous Nixon years.
> >
> > Well, those are some of the reasons we all love him!
> >
> > >
> > > The question is, how does the true artist co-exist with the hardnosed
> > > businessman? Can anyone really be both at the same time?
> > >
> >
> > I absolutely think so. With Paul, his artism (I think I just made up
> > that word but I like it a lot) continues in spite of himself.
>
> LOL! I think Paul invented "artism" to cloak himself in John's risky
> aura. He's definitely tapped out creatively. He was *never*
> artistically edgy or avant garde, and that's the fact, no matter how
> much he protests. "Silly Love Songs" is the romantic young adult
> classic. Sentiment is fine in its place, but please don't tell me
> it's art.
My feeling, and I might have said this before, is that Paul makes NO
CLAIM, and NEVER HAS to be creating "art" in the high-falutin' sense.
I admire this in an artist, and do not admire anyone, especially a
rock'n'roller, who takes himself very seriously and goes to great
lengths to make sure that what he is doing is in fact art and that
everybody knows it.
I think Paul just follows his instincts and his ideas about how to
write songs and make records, makes music he likes and hopes that
others will like it too, and lets the "art" cards fall where they may
and truly doesn't think much about that. He has as much as said so
many times, but you just automatically dismiss anything he says as
spin and lies if it doesn't support your current argument, so that
won't help me. Anyway, the fact is that much of what he has produced
IS art, in my opinion all of Run Devil Run (the covers anyway, the
originals were pretty lame I'd say except for the title track which
rocks along REALLY nicely) - do you think that "cover" versions of
songs interpreted other than by their writers can be art, can be
creative and express complex emotion? If not, tell Linda Ronstandt,
Frank Sinatra, Elvis Presley, etc.,....Anyway, I thought Paul's
version of "Lonesome Town" was "excruciatingly tender," just
heartbreaking (and not the least bit maudlin or bathetic) a much more
moving, interesting performance and a better song for what it's worth
than "Beautiful Boy" ever was.
>
> > > When rock'n'roll became driven by big business, during the early 70's,
> > > something definitely went out of it - some say its heart. This is a
> > > given. We're simply not talking about the same thing any more.
> > >
> >
> > For me rock'n'roll didn't lose its heart 'til the early '80s. That's
> > when Paul's music started to really suck for a while too, but that may
> > be just a coincidence. But the early '70s? Come on! Led Zeppelin,
> > Yes, Allman Brothers, Elton John, etc, etc., etc.....no heart?
> >
> Allmans (had they not started killing themselves in the early 70's)
> were fine blues performers, but they too were performers more than
> creators.
> I'm surprised you think Zep had heart... they had balls, fer shure,
> but in the context of a discussion about Beatle level art? Sorry.
> Elton? Sorry, but I believe Elton/Bernie were practically 70's
> icons... the second tier as far as creativity goes. Why do you think
> he ended up making back his fortune on the back of Disney Studios?
> Crass!
>
Thought we were talking about the '70's, not the time period of EJ's
Disney stuff which I cringe at. I guess we're veering off topic, but
you didn't dig "Tumbleweed Connection" or "Madman Across the Water"?
Oh well.
Led Zeppelin not art? How about Steely Dan? To me they were the best
and artsiest of commercial pop/rock in the '70's, also the most
daring, subversive and adventurous both musically and lyrically.
I'm starting to think we must not have starting-off common ground to
even talk about music (and I'm sure it's me who's the problem there).
> > > The Beatles and Stones and Who were the godheads of rock music. After
> > > it became something else, Paul, being the best businessman, was bound
> > > to succeed beyond even his wildest dreams financially, if not
> > > critically. He was made for these times.
> > >
I don't know what you mean by "bound" but he worked awfully hard for
it, throwing together a band from scratch, honing it on the road at
small gigs for years, and overcoming some pretty dry creative periods
and pretty much universal critical disdain, venom, dismissal (and BTW
back then in the '70's, no music papers seemed afraid to pan Paul for
fear of being denied access to him - and this has got to be hard on
anybody, I would think, especially someone with an ) to become very
successful, create a stratospherically successful rock band and
achieve his goals. I know that's worthless to you.
> > > Second, after money ceases to be a motivation (In other words, when
> > > the artist stops being "hungry"), does this necessarily mean the
> > > artist's greatest works are behind him,
> >
> > What I'm wondering is, have you heard, or read the reviews for, Paul's
> > last three studio albums?
>
> Yes. I see that the critics are admiring his energy. Nobody's saying
> these songs measure up to Beatle standards. Again, it's the delivery
> of material reminiscent of earlier "good stuff", combined with the
> realization that half the Beatles are gone. I've also read some
> "customer reviews" that don't go along with the critics. Remember, RS
> gave Mick Jagger's solo 4 stars. They had more good things to say
> about it than they said about Paul's.
>
Didn't they give it 5 stars? That was inexpicable to me. I thought
it was great when they gave Paul 4 I think, but then I read their love
letter to Mick's album and that kind of made me think the Paul review
wasn't really worth much after all.
Anyway, I'm talking about not just a specific review from a prominent
source, I was talking about the general trend overall among ALL the
many reviews I've read of these albums. Flaming Pie and Driving Rain
both seemed to get generally good reaction, usually (yes) tempered and
sort of polite, but Run Devil Run got fantastic reviews, from a lot of
very credible sources who WOULDN't hesitate for a second to dis
McCartney, I'm POSITIVE.
> > These have gotten the most sparling,
> > near-universally complimentary critical reaction of Paul's entire
> > career.
>
> They weren't quite as kind since "Flaming Pie". His entire career?
> Piece of cake. What are you gonna do? Write a bad review and have the
> guy never speak to your magazine again? LOL!
>
So right there you're dismissing the motivation and sincerity of any
positive reviews of Paul's albums. Makes it tough to argue with.
> > In Paul McCartney's case, I think it's more accurate to say
> > that his WORSE days are far behind him,
>
> People are praying that's true, but looks to me like his worst days as
> a writer/artist are AHEAD of him. We both know he won't be able to
> resist putting together another album
Why the hell should he resist?
> the days of pap like "Say Say
> > Say" and "Silly Love Songs" (both of which I like a lot, the truth be
> > known but they're basically sheer pap nonetheless, whereas his stuff
> > from the last five years or so is much more personal, raw, expressive,
> > passionate, innovative, non-commercial, etc) seem to be long gone.
> >
>
> Dammit. You used "pap" first! If RDR sounded raw to you - it sounded
> sloppy and derivative to me (the originals, I mean).
I ackownledged, yes I thought the originals were NG. But that was
only three out of fifteen tracks and the rest were MAGNIFICENT, and
the critical community thought so too, and they were right IMO.
And I hate some of Paul's albums, including some that many critics
love (just as inexplicably to me as with Rolling Stone's Goddess rave,
including Tug of War, and well for me, Flaming Pie, actually to my
ears it's way overrated, but "Little Willow" is an absolute gem and a
terrific lyric too, you should check it out, it's straight from the
heart and very effective, great piece of songwriting musically too, I
admire it enormously).
> Please tell me one lyric from DR that impressed you as more personal,
> innovative than his early post-Beatle stuff...
But it's not the lyric that matters for me. "I Feel Fine" wasn't much
of lyric, would you agree?, but is one of the Beatles' greatest songs,
ditto "I Want to Hold Your Han", not much to talk about as far as the
lyric, but it's the sound, the playing, the structure, the
arrangement, the vocals, the harmony, the ENERGY, just the overall
impression made by the record as a whole. Not that much of the
Driving Rain material is on that level, but I find "Tiny Bubble" very
pleasing (the music, the playing, the chords and melody, NOT the
lyrics which are silly but it doesn't bother me and more than it does
in Little Richard) and I absolutely love "Lonely Road," the track and
the lyrics too, my only complaint about the song is that it should
have been longer, but the harmonized screaming vocals could have made
it on any Beatles album for my money.
> honestly, I've seen the
> lyrics and for the life of me can't see anything passionate about
> them. "Maybe I'm Amazed" was passionate and raw. It still is. "Here
> There and Everywhere" was personal, expressive... and "Hey Jude"
> expressed more personal longing than any other song he wrote (yeah,
> I'm biased :-)).
Man I'm looking forward to hearing all those songs played live next
weekend!
(Even though I've seen and heard 'em a couple times already, it's been
too long and I'm kind of jonesing. Fun for its own sake. I'm going
to be getting high too!)
> And remember, I adore "After the Ball" - it's his best post-Beatle
> screamer imo. But I cannot stand "SSS" or "SLS". Not my thing is all.
>
Here's where again we are coming from a really different place in our
appreciation of pop. Many times for me I just admire and enjoy the
craft and the slickness of pop records that are well written (from a
melodic and strucutural point of view), played, sung and produced.
The snappy horn charts in Say Say Say give me a lot of pleasure, as
well as the vocal duet that Paul and Jacko hit on the release, "All
alone I sit home by the phone..," great melody and harmonies there and
thru the whole song - and how about that fantastic melodic riffing
Paul ad libs so silkily on the line "You never never worry and you
never shed a tear". If you can't appreciate that stuff or the great
bass playing that powers SLS along with the clever layered harmonies
and again sizzling horn section (and yes even, on reflection, the
populist sentiment which I agree with completely), well, then I guess
you're just a lot smarter than I, but you might be missing out on
something too.
> >
> middle aged concert-goers. His songs are never revelatory
THAT is not true.
> He has the gift of manufacturing
> it, perpetuating his own personal joy in performing, which is a craft
> much more than an art.
Craft is a great and endless fascinating part of pop and rock music.
As a musician and someone who fancies myself somewhat of a pop
afficianado, craft is one of the elements I notice, enjoy and admire
the most on records. Other favorite artists (okay, rock'n'roll record
making music type guys) of mine including Squeeze, Marshall Crenshaw,
Steely Dan, Beach Boys and Todd Rundgren as well as McCartney are
masters of melody and musical craftsmanship. Their work gives me
enormous pleasure and makes the world a better place (thereby, in
fact, changing the world, how do you like them apples), whether or not
it's capital-A Art. You're probably gonna insult me now about this
somehow now, saying I'm a puppet, gullible, being sold a bill of
goods, having the wool pulled out of my eyes by these cynical greedy
merchant manipulators. I'm bracing for it.
> When he was asked why he's touring now instead
> of immersing himself in his new romantic life, tellingly, he said "For
> my own fun" (words to that effect). Like I said before, away from
> that live audience, the art disappears, and for Paul, the fun, too.
>
You don't get the impression Paul enjoys writing songs and working in
the studio too? Odd.
> You're right - McCartney concerts are for fun. Give em 2/3 Beatles and
> Wings, 1/3 his casual new product, no warmup act to distract from the
> nostalgic aura, and he's giving them what they want... which is not to
> think or be challenged, not to be taken anywhere they've not been
> before, and certainly not to reflect on society the way so much great
> art does.
Why hold somebody's feet to the fire for not making great art when
he's never claimed to?
> Hey, thanks for the stimulating discourse!
I'll take that as face value in the hopes that you're not being
sarcastic there? I'm not trying to be stimulatingly discoursive, just
talking about some rock'n'roll.
> And I'm sure you'll enjoy
> the show as much as you anticipate...
>
I think you're right there. I had a terrible cold and a sore throat
this whole weekend which I'm hoping gets better by next so I can blow
it out again by screaming at the top of my lungs all night. I love
being immature!
richforman
>
> Frannie
Jonathan Appell
> The promoters set the price and pay the crew etc... BTW, Paul's promoter is
> Barry Marshall of Marshall Arts.
Yes, the promoters set the price... based on the performers fee.
Frannie
> franc...@excite.com (Frannie) wrote in message news:<b8bebffe.02041...@posting.google.com>...
> > rfor...@optonline.net (Rich Forman) wrote in message > >
> >
> > Hmmm. I think you're talking about performance, rather than
> > creativity....
> >
>
> I'm talking about the whole package. Sound, performance, energy, band
> vibe, emotional content ("Lonely Road" and "From a Lover" have this in
> spades IMO, albeit delivered somewhat ambiguously, probably even to
> the writer), melody/chord changes and that elusive rock'n'roll thing,
> which is undefinable but I know when I hear, and is way all over Run
> Devil Run...not just lyrics, which it sounds from your post is all you
> go by.
>
I'm not going by lyrics alone, but when you say "the whole package" I
think you're talking about performance again. Or, adding up the
elements you just described - the "feel" - which in this context is
applied to RDR.
> I judge rock more by the sound and the rockingness of it. Paul's
> "Letting Go"'s lyrics are neglible, "Beware My Love" even worse ("the
> sound of his thunder"? ugh!), but they're both all-time great songs
> nevertheless IMO for the sound, the passionate crunch, the vocals,
> guitars and the groove.
>
Sorry, but I think this is a rehash of your previous paragraph.
"all-time great songs" seems a tad exaggerated. Did you mean your
"all-time" favorites?
> > > > John took another road, toward less commercial, more personally
> > > > satisfying music.
> > >
> > > Personally satisfying to whom? TO me, John was on an artistic slide
That sounds awfully biased, for someone who has just raved about
"passionate crunch" and "emotional content" - which have nothing to do
with artistic (creative) ability and longevity of the material.
> > > when he was taken from us. "Starting Over," "Woman," "Nobody Told
> > > Me," "Borrowed Time," and "Watching the Wheels" are among the dullest,
> > > laziest and least imaginative songs he ever came up with (on NTM and
> > > WTW, arrangements that never vary from verse to verse and tempos that
> > > never get past a mind-numbing Adult Contemporary groove);
> >
> > Whoa! Borrowed Time wasn't on DF, let's start there....
> >
>
> Didn't say it was, but it still sucks.
>
"Borrowed Time" doesn't suck, even as a half-finished demo. But
that's off-topic, and obviously personal opinion, so I'm passing it
by.
> > But wait. Personally satisfying to whom? To JOHN, and to Yoko, of
> > course!
> >
>
> So that's the goal, rather than for the music to give joy and
> excitement to me?
When we speak of art, yes, the object is to satisfy the artist. It's
not a goal -- it's the core of the artistic impulse. It is almost
always a useful measure of what separates art and commerce.
<small snip>
> >
> > "Woman" is one of the best, most loving lyrics John ever wrote.
>
> An ubelievable claim. Strictly all matters of opinion of course.
> (Most loving? Sure. And I'm positive you also give Paul equal credit
> for his many very loving lyrics to Linda and now to Heather. But -
> Best lyrics he ever wrote? Are you serious?)
>
Absolutely. It's a mature songwriter's arrival at a vulnerability he
had not achieved in his previous love songs to Yoko, which were
hard-edged sounding, and sometimes simplistic in lyrics...
> > No
> > arrangement of it I ever heard reminded me in the least of Air Supply!
> > John wasn't trying to sound Beatle-esque (although there are definite
> > similarities in the chord changes... ) "Beautiful Boy" is
> > excruciatingly tender.
>
> "Excruciating" I'll go along with. Why is McCartney raked over the
> coals for being "sentinmental" when if it's Lennon it's "tender"?
Sentimental moon June spoon croon stuff isn't tender. "Maybe I'm
Amazed" has lyric tenderness.
I'm not raking Paul's stuff over the coals, I'm simply observing what
many others have observed over the years.
I
> know John loved his son but this song could have just stayed private
> between the two of them for my money.
>
You're in the minority on this one. It has universal appeal, and
expresses perfectly the feelings older fathers have for their infant
children. The monster's gone, he's on the run and your daddy's here. I
can hardly wait for you to come of age but I guess we'll both just
have to be patient, so in the meantime...
> > > post-Beatles works are for me much more personally satisfying than
> > > many of John's. Just being less commercial isn't in itself a virtue.
> > >
> >
> > I think it's the other way round. We *know* Paul finds such gems as
> > "Freedom" and "Rinse the Raindrops" personally satisfying... but he
> > doesn't seem to care if the lyrics are insipid and the melodies
> > instantly forgettable... again, I think you're talking about
> > performance, not content.
>
> Yes, I'm talking about how the record comes out when they're done
> making it, and whether or not I like it, and if so, how much.
>
Performance. You're the one who said "being less commercial isn't a
virtue." But if we're talking about artists (which you claim Paul is,
"just like John") then the reverse is true as well. Being more
commercial isn't a virtue, either.
> >
> > > Besides, you know and I know that John too was interested in getting
> > > paid, making money as a Beatle, and having popular hit singles. Like
> > > Paul, he was both an artist and a showbiz rock star.
> > >
> >
> > Paul is not an artist "like John was". John was not a "showbiz rock
> > star" after he left the Beatles. It's fairly well known that without
> > Yoko's strengths as a financial manager, John could have gone broke
> > within another ten years (notwithstanding Anthology profits, of
> > course).
> >
>
> These sentences sound like they're flown in from another conversation
> somewhere.
>
How so? You said John was interested in making money as a Beatle. You
also said Paul was both an artist and a rock star. What part didn't
pertain?
<snip to avoid repetition>
>
> My feeling, and I might have said this before, is that Paul makes NO
> CLAIM, and NEVER HAS to be creating "art" in the high-falutin' sense.
Then what is all this crap about "avant garde"? Art is all-embracing.
Paul has NEVER made a distinction between "high-faluting" art and any
other kind. Now you're struggling with your own argument. You say
"like John" he *was* an artist. Are you now saying it's all about
reversing credits on "Yesterday" in order for Paul to take his
"rightful place" in pop culture history?
> I admire this in an artist, and do not admire anyone, especially a
> rock'n'roller, who takes himself very seriously and goes to great
> lengths to make sure that what he is doing is in fact art and that
> everybody knows it.
>
I think you've misunderstood your own argument. And now you've added
an element of reverse snobbery. John had every right to call himself
an artist, and he often talked about how the artistic impulse might
come out in the form of drawings or poetry or "happenings" like
Bagism. He didn't have to tell anybody "this is my art" - everyone
could see that it was. Except the idiots who said it wasn't art just
because they didn't "get it." These are the sorts of people who look
at a Picasso drawing and say "My kid did a better drawing than that in
his day care." These are the sort of people who will never understand
modern art. Or modern music for that matter.
> I think Paul just follows his instincts and his ideas about how to
> write songs and make records, makes music he likes and hopes that
> others will like it too, and lets the "art" cards fall where they may
> and truly doesn't think much about that.
His actions belie those words. You must think he's really still a
dewy-eyed 23, and quite unsophisticated about his place in the world.
Please! He's one of the most complicated and *guarded* celebrities
around! And I'm not talking about bodyguards!
He has as much as said so
> many times, but you just automatically dismiss anything he says as
> spin and lies if it doesn't support your current argument, so that
> won't help me.
Please stop saying that. I certainly don't automatically dismiss what
he says. I do, however, think about the actual songs. How the quality
has become stagnant. What he says in interviews (which have been too
frequent lately) really doesn't enter into this particular discussion.
Anyway, the fact is that much of what he has produced
> IS art, in my opinion all of Run Devil Run (the covers anyway, the
> originals were pretty lame I'd say except for the title track which
> rocks along REALLY nicely) - do you think that "cover" versions of
> songs interpreted other than by their writers can be art,
Songs can be covered beautifully. The singer as artist can be
inspiring. Personally, I think the covers were nothing special.
"Lonesome Town" is one of my fave Rick Nelson tunes and I don't think
Paul improved on it. "All Shook Up" was fun - in tribute to Elvis
sort of way. But when it comes to great covers, lots of artists have
recently covered classic rock songs in interesting ways.
Sure. But that's another subject, isn't it?
can be
> creative and express complex emotion? If not, tell Linda Ronstandt,
> Frank Sinatra, Elvis Presley, etc.,....Anyway, I thought Paul's
> version of "Lonesome Town" was "excruciatingly tender," just
> heartbreaking (and not the least bit maudlin or bathetic) a much more
> moving, interesting performance and a better song for what it's worth
> than "Beautiful Boy" ever was.
>
What a crazy comparison. He didn't write it. LT is a pseudo Western
ballad. It's as maudlin as the 50's ever got... which is why I loved
it when Rick sang it. Now you're really getting fanatical.
> >
> > > > When rock'n'roll became driven by big business, during the early 70's,
> > > > something definitely went out of it - some say its heart. This is a
> > > > given. We're simply not talking about the same thing any more.
> > > >
> > >
> > > For me rock'n'roll didn't lose its heart 'til the early '80s. That's
> > > when Paul's music started to really suck for a while too, but that may
> > > be just a coincidence.
LOL!
>
> Led Zeppelin not art? How about Steely Dan?
That is a whole nother genre. Of course Steely Dan is art. How could
they not be, using a William Burroughs image for their name? Just
kidding. But they are fusion/rock...
>
> > > > The Beatles and Stones and Who were the godheads of rock music. After
> > > > it became something else, Paul, being the best businessman, was bound
> > > > to succeed beyond even his wildest dreams financially, if not
> > > > critically. He was made for these times.
> > > >
>
> I don't know what you mean by "bound" but he worked awfully hard for
> it, throwing together a band from scratch,
Are you talking Wings now????
honing it on the road at
> small gigs for years, and overcoming some pretty dry creative periods
> and pretty much universal critical disdain, venom, dismissal (and BTW
> back then in the '70's, no music papers seemed afraid to pan Paul for
> fear of being denied access to him - and this has got to be hard on
> anybody, I would think, especially someone with an ) to become very
> successful, create a stratospherically successful rock band and
> achieve his goals. I know that's worthless to you.
>
What are you talking about? Wings was not stratospherically successful
by any stretch. He never pretended it could have been a fraction as
popular as the Beatles. Come on. Stop putting words in my mouth. I
never used the word "worthless" about any part of Paul's career.
> > > > Second, after money ceases to be a motivation (In other words, when
> > > > the artist stops being "hungry"), does this necessarily mean the
> > > > artist's greatest works are behind him,
> > >
> > > What I'm wondering is, have you heard, or read the reviews for, Paul's
> > > last three studio albums?
> >
> > Yes. I see that the critics are admiring his energy. Nobody's saying
> > these songs measure up to Beatle standards. Again, it's the delivery
> > of material reminiscent of earlier "good stuff", combined with the
> > realization that half the Beatles are gone. I've also read some
> > "customer reviews" that don't go along with the critics. Remember, RS
> > gave Mick Jagger's solo 4 stars. They had more good things to say
> > about it than they said about Paul's.
> >
>
> Didn't they give it 5 stars?
Yes, you're right. I know they liked the record better than they liked
Driving Rain. So did I.
That was inexpicable to me. I thought
> it was great when they gave Paul 4 I think, but then I read their love
> letter to Mick's album and that kind of made me think the Paul review
> wasn't really worth much after all.
>
Oh, so you admit you dismiss any criticism of Paul's current product
if it comes from someone who really liked "Goddess"?
> Anyway, I'm talking about not just a specific review from a prominent
> source, I was talking about the general trend overall among ALL the
> many reviews I've read of these albums.
Sorry but I stopped reading his reviews (except for NYorker and RS)
years ago. I listen to the record first, and make my own judgments.
Flaming Pie and Driving Rain
> both seemed to get generally good reaction, usually (yes) tempered and
> sort of polite, but Run Devil Run got fantastic reviews, from a lot of
> very credible sources who WOULDN't hesitate for a second to dis
> McCartney, I'm POSITIVE.
>
I'm sure you're right. Doesn't make any difference to me. I still
think there are a lot of freakouts about the fact that there are just
two Beatles left. The "rock generation" is facing their own mortality.
Your statement doesn't address this business of Art v. Showmanship.
Which is where I think you're not understanding my perspective.
>
> > > In Paul McCartney's case, I think it's more accurate to say
> > > that his WORSE days are far behind him,
> >
> > People are praying that's true, but looks to me like his worst days as
> > a writer/artist are AHEAD of him. We both know he won't be able to
> > resist putting together another album
>
> Why the hell should he resist?
>
No "why" about it. He has no other way of living, cannot just "be
himself" without an audience and devoted fans. I just wouldn't expect
him to test himself or stretch in any way. Which is the entire point
of our little colloquy.
>
> > Please tell me one lyric from DR that impressed you as more personal,
> > innovative than his early post-Beatle stuff...
>
> But it's not the lyric that matters for me.
That answers my question. If lyrics aren't at least half of what
makes or breaks a song, whether they are playfully inane, poetic, or
simply expressive of a particular emotion -- then what the hell are we
talking for?
<snip repetition>
>
> Man I'm looking forward to hearing all those songs played live next
> weekend!
> (Even though I've seen and heard 'em a couple times already, it's been
> too long and I'm kind of jonesing. Fun for its own sake. I'm going
> to be getting high too!)
>
> > And remember, I adore "After the Ball" - it's his best post-Beatle
> > screamer imo. But I cannot stand "SSS" or "SLS". Not my thing is all.
> >
>
> Here's where again we are coming from a really different place in our
> appreciation of pop. Many times for me I just admire and enjoy the
> craft and the slickness of pop records that are well written (from a
> melodic and strucutural point of view), played, sung and produced.
> The snappy horn charts in Say Say Say give me a lot of pleasure, as
> well as the vocal duet that Paul and Jacko hit on the release, "All
> alone I sit home by the phone..," great melody and harmonies there and
> thru the whole song - and how about that fantastic melodic riffing
> Paul ad libs so silkily on the line "You never never worry and you
> never shed a tear". If you can't appreciate that stuff or the great
> bass playing that powers SLS along with the clever layered harmonies
> and again sizzling horn section (and yes even, on reflection, the
> populist sentiment which I agree with completely), well, then I guess
> you're just a lot smarter than I, but you might be missing out on
> something too.
>
A very long paragraph -- all about performance, again. Does Paul write
good pop songs that are fun to listen to and sing along with? Sure he
does. He still plays a hot bass sometimes. He has a distinctive voice
that is seldom well imitated.
But we weren't arguing about the proper appreciation of *pop*. You've
picked out some fragmentary parts of various songs you enjoy a lot.
But you throw round the word "great" a bit too easily.
>
> > He has the gift of manufacturing
> > it, perpetuating his own personal joy in performing, which is a craft
> > much more than an art.
>
> Craft is a great and endless fascinating part of pop and rock music.
> As a musician and someone who fancies myself somewhat of a pop
> afficianado, craft is one of the elements I notice, enjoy and admire
It's just one element, though. Of all the arts.
> the most on records. Other favorite artists (okay, rock'n'roll record
> making music type guys) of mine including Squeeze, Marshall Crenshaw,
> Steely Dan, Beach Boys and Todd Rundgren as well as McCartney are
> masters of melody and musical craftsmanship. Their work gives me
> enormous pleasure and makes the world a better place (thereby, in
> fact, changing the world, how do you like them apples), whether or not
> it's capital-A Art.
art, with or without capital letters is much much larger than
craft...
You're probably gonna insult me now about this
> somehow now, saying I'm a puppet, gullible, being sold a bill of
> goods, having the wool pulled out of my eyes by these cynical greedy
> merchant manipulators. I'm bracing for it.
>
You must be joking. You have an opinion of Paul as an artist. But
your argument requires an artificial separation between "Art" and
'art'... when there really is none.
>
> > You're right - McCartney concerts are for fun. Give em 2/3 Beatles and
> > Wings, 1/3 his casual new product, no warmup act to distract from the
> > nostalgic aura, and he's giving them what they want... which is not to
> > think or be challenged, not to be taken anywhere they've not been
> > before, and certainly not to reflect on society the way so much great
> > art does.
>
> Why hold somebody's feet to the fire for not making great art when
> he's never claimed to?
>
Please, rich, you're exaggerating beyond all reason. Paul is still
campaigning for parity with John Lennon as a creative artist. Looking
at the evidence, I'd say he's claiming he deserves to be considered by
all the same criteria.
> > Hey, thanks for the stimulating discourse!
>
> I'll take that as face value in the hopes that you're not being
> sarcastic there? I'm not trying to be stimulatingly discoursive, just
> talking about some rock'n'roll.
Ah, but this was supposed to be about Paul's artistic integrity, his
place in cultural history, and his high regard for the appetites of
his fans...
Francie
A fanatic is a man that does what he thinks
the Lord would do if He knew the facts of the case.
~ Finley Peter Dunne ~
Sir Barb
"Jonathan Appell" <appellpr...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:B8E0EFC5.12B0D%appellpr...@rcn.com...
There are far more factors than simply the performer's fees that affect the
price. Regardless, you are taking my statement out of context. It was in
response to this statement:
Larry Spoons
Frannie
that you are able to discuss your opinions with people who think
differently - without attempting to destroy the other's point of view
for the sake of "conventional wisdom".
Thank you.
Francie
"Repetition in a continuous present, on the
other hand, assures difference, for no repetition,
whether of word or deed, can ever produce an
exact replica of a now-lost original." (Ralph Ellison)
Rich Forman
> rfor...@optonline.net (Rich Forman) wrote in message news:<f354f363.02041...@posting.google.com>...
> > franc...@excite.com (Frannie) wrote in message news:<b8bebffe.02041...@posting.google.com>...
> > > rfor...@optonline.net (Rich Forman) wrote in message > >
> > >
> > > Hmmm. I think you're talking about performance, rather than
> > > creativity....
> > >
> >
> > I'm talking about the whole package. Sound, performance, energy, band
>
> I'm not going by lyrics alone, but when you say "the whole package" I
> think you're talking about performance again.
YES! YES! Glad I got through. To me in many of these cases, the art
is in the performance.
>
>
> > I judge rock more by the sound and the rockingness of it. Paul's
> > "Letting Go"'s lyrics are neglible, "Beware My Love" even worse ...but
> > they're both all-time great songs
> > nevertheless IMO for the sound, the passionate crunch, the vocals,
> > guitars and the groove.
> >
>
> Sorry, but I think this is a rehash of your previous paragraph.
> "all-time great songs" seems a tad exaggerated. Did you mean your
> "all-time" favorites?
Yes, I meant I like them. We are communicating on all cylinders here!
> > >
> > > Whoa! Borrowed Time wasn't on DF, let's start there....
> > >
> >
> > Didn't say it was, but it still sucks.
> >
>
> "Borrowed Time" doesn't suck, even as a half-finished demo.
That wimpy would-be calypso feel? Every bit as grating as "C Moon" or
"Ob La Di Ob La Da." And the vocal delivery reminds me of Al
Stewart's "Time Passages," which is not a good thing.
> But
> that's off-topic, and obviously personal opinion, so I'm passing it
> by.
>
To me the main purpose of rmb is trading personal opinions about
music.
> > Why is McCartney raked over the
> > coals for being "sentinmental" when if it's Lennon it's "tender"?
>
> Sentimental moon June spoon croon stuff isn't tender. "Maybe I'm
> Amazed" has lyric tenderness.
AND to reuse my previous phrase "passionate crunch." What a great
song and record.
> I'm not raking Paul's stuff over the coals, I'm simply observing what
> many others have observed over the years.
>
> I
> > know John loved his son but this song could have just stayed private
> > between the two of them for my money.
> >
>
> You're in the minority on this one. It has universal appeal, and
> expresses perfectly the feelings older fathers have for their infant
> children. The monster's gone, he's on the run and your daddy's here. I
> can hardly wait for you to come of age but I guess we'll both just
> have to be patient, so in the meantime...
>
You're right about me being in the minority here, I know many fans get
all googly over this tune, but I still don't think it much of an
accomplishment. We all have our sweet-tooths, and I suspect that
your high opinion of this song is influenced by your pre-disposed
liking of John, just as I like a lot of Paul stuff (and lots of other
stuff in pop) that I'd have to admit may not have much artistic merit
when analyzed with a more critical view.
Anyway, like I mentioned before, I'm very interested in the craft and
structural aspects of pop and rock songwriting, and IMO this song,
like very much of Lennon's post-Beatles work, is sorely lacking in
this respect. For reasons I can hear clearly in my mind but may not
be able to articulate very effectively, I strongly believe that "so I
guess we'll both just have to be patient" is not a very good, strong,
well-written line, musically and lyrically. If it was a
Lennon-McCartney collaboration or for a Beatles album, I don't think
that line would have stayed in, just like John wouldn't settle for "I
just feel fine" in "With a Little Help," staying with the song until
they came up with the much more interesting line "I know it's mine."
>
> > > > post-Beatles works are for me much more personally satisfying than
> > > > many of John's. Just being less commercial isn't in itself a virtue.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think it's the other way round. We *know* Paul finds such gems as
> > > "Freedom" and "Rinse the Raindrops" personally satisfying... but he
> > > doesn't seem to care if the lyrics are insipid and the melodies
> > > instantly forgettable... again, I think you're talking about
> > > performance, not content.
> >
> > Yes, I'm talking about how the record comes out when they're done
> > making it, and whether or not I like it, and if so, how much.
> >
>
> Performance.
Performance. I'm talking in large part about performance....a big
part of music....the biggest part of rock'n'roll.
> You're the one who said "being less commercial isn't a
> virtue." But if we're talking about artists (which you claim Paul is,
> "just like John") then the reverse is true as well. Being more
> commercial isn't a virtue, either.
>
> > >
> > > > Besides, you know and I know that John too was interested in getting
> > > > paid, making money as a Beatle, and having popular hit singles. Like
> > > > Paul, he was both an artist and a showbiz rock star.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Paul is not an artist "like John was". John was not a "showbiz rock
> > > star" after he left the Beatles. It's fairly well known that without
> > > Yoko's strengths as a financial manager, John could have gone broke
> > > within another ten years (notwithstanding Anthology profits, of
> > > course).
> > >
> >
> > These sentences sound like they're flown in from another conversation
> > somewhere.
> >
>
> How so? You said John was interested in making money as a Beatle. You
> also said Paul was both an artist and a rock star. What part didn't
> pertain?
>
The part about John not being a good businessman or financial manager.
This didn't contradict or pertan to my statement that John was
interested in, and motivated by, making money and having hits. In the
early Beatles days, NONE of them were good businessmen....apparently
Paul has become one since then....but they were all IIMMAHH.
> <snip to avoid repetition>
> >
> > My feeling, and I might have said this before, is that Paul makes NO
> > CLAIM, and NEVER HAS to be creating "art" in the high-falutin' sense.
>
> Then what is all this crap about "avant garde"?
My understanding about this is just that Paul pointed out that he
developed an interest in the London underground arts scene, and a
strong curiosity about various books, plays, electronic/experimental
music, happenings, etc. Several articles in the current special
collector's issue of Mojo magazine, which discusses in detail the
Beatles' activities during their "psychedelic period" from '65 to '68,
back this up.
> Art is all-embracing.
> Paul has NEVER made a distinction between "high-faluting" art and any
> other kind. Now you're struggling with your own argument. You say
> "like John" he *was* an artist.
I say Paul is, in some sense, an artist, and much of his work does
qualify as art. I also recognize a distinction between popular art
and "high art," and I think that John's music, Paul's, and the
Beatles', fall on the same, "popular" side of that line. (Among the
three, as to how good and successful they are, I'd rank the Beatles'
the best, Paul's the second best and John's the third; and I take into
account performance, feel, sound, melody, craftsmanship, harmonic
interest, and structure, as well as the lyrics in forming my opinion.)
It's art - not in the same sense as classical music, or serious jazz -
but still art.
If Paul didn't make this distinction, I'm making it.
There's other pop music (and film, for instance) that I wouldn't even
say qualifies as art at all, mere product or mere entertainment;
apparently
you think most or all of Paul's material is in this category. I guess
this is the heart of where we disagree. (Well, partially; some of his
stuff is pretty disposable and fluffy, but not nearly all of it, and
not particulary his recent stuff IMO.)
> Are you now saying it's all about
> reversing credits on "Yesterday" in order for Paul to take his
> "rightful place" in pop culture history?
>
Uh, I don't know. Am I saying that? Somebody help me out here.
>
> > I admire this in an artist, and do not admire anyone, especially a
> > rock'n'roller, who takes himself very seriously and goes to great
> > lengths to make sure that what he is doing is in fact art and that
> > everybody knows it.
> >
>
> I think you've misunderstood your own argument. And now you've added
> an element of reverse snobbery. John had every right to call himself
> an artist,
> and he often talked about how the artistic impulse might
> come out in the form of drawings or poetry or "happenings" like
> Bagism. He didn't have to tell anybody "this is my art" - everyone
> could see that it was.
Now I'm confused: "he didn't have to tell anybody 'this is my art'";
and yet, "he often talked about how the artistic impulse might come
out in the form of drawings or poetry.." ?
I think John's best art was his rock'n'roll (same for Paul, except
"was" would be "was and is"), for instance, the songs he wrote for the
Beatles in '64 and '65, which I believe have more artistic value, more
enduring impact and cultural import, and more depth and creativity
than his drawings or Bagism happenings, and come from a more
pragmatic, commercial impulse, before he was so concerned with art and
being an artist.
>
> > I think Paul just follows his instincts and his ideas about how to
> > write songs and make records, makes music he likes and hopes that
> > others will like it too, and lets the "art" cards fall where they may
> > and truly doesn't think much about that.
>
> His actions belie those words. You must think he's really still a
> dewy-eyed 23, and quite unsophisticated about his place in the world.
> Please! He's one of the most complicated and *guarded* celebrities
> around! And I'm not talking about bodyguards!
>
> > do you think that "cover" versions of
> > songs interpreted other than by their writers can be art,
>
> Songs can be covered beautifully. The singer as artist can be
> inspiring. Personally, I think the covers were nothing special.
> "Lonesome Town" is one of my fave Rick Nelson tunes and I don't think
> Paul improved on it. "All Shook Up" was fun - in tribute to Elvis
> sort of way. But when it comes to great covers, lots of artists have
> recently covered classic rock songs in interesting ways.
> Sure. But that's another subject, isn't it?
>
Well, you asked (something like) if I found any of the lyrics from the
originals on RDR inspiring, and I was saying I find the cover version
performances inspiring, and was wondering why you phrased your
question in a way that seemed to exclude the cover versions
> > > >
> > > > For me rock'n'roll didn't lose its heart 'til the early '80s. That's
> > > > when Paul's music started to really suck for a while too, but that may
> > > > be just a coincidence.
>
> LOL!
>
>
> >
> > Led Zeppelin not art? How about Steely Dan?
>
> That is a whole nother genre. Of course Steely Dan is art. How could
> they not be, using a William Burroughs image for their name? Just
> kidding. But they are fusion/rock...
>
>
> > > > > Paul, being the best businessman, was bound
> > > > > to succeed beyond even his wildest dreams financially, if not
> > > > > critically. He was made for these times.
> > > > >
> >
> > I don't know what you mean by "bound" but he worked awfully hard for
> > it, throwing together a band from scratch,
>
> Are you talking Wings now????
>
Again we seem to be communicating very successfully at this point.
Wings was the band he put together. Yes.
> honing it on the road at
> > small gigs for years, and overcoming some pretty dry creative periods
> > and pretty much universal critical disdain, venom, dismissal (and BTW
> > back then in the '70's, no music papers seemed afraid to pan Paul for
> > fear of being denied access to him - and this has got to be hard on
> > anybody, I would think, especially someone with an ) to become very
> > successful, create a stratospherically successful rock band and
> > achieve his goals. I know that's worthless to you.
> >
>
> What are you talking about? Wings was not stratospherically successful
> by any stretch.
#1 albums, lots of #1 hit singles, hugely successful and well-received
world tour, one of the very biggest of its era.
> He never pretended it could have been a fraction as
> popular as the Beatles.
Does that use of "fraction" strike you as one of those common misuses
of a word that isn't really accurate? (Like "I could care less" when
the speaker means "I Couldn't care less.") No matter what, Wings was
some FRACTION as popular as the Beatles, even if it was a small
fraction! They were pretty popular from what I understand, though.
> > > > > Second, after money ceases to be a motivation (In other words, when
> > > > > the artist stops being "hungry"), does this necessarily mean the
> > > > > artist's greatest works are behind him,
> > > >
> > > > What I'm wondering is, have you heard, or read the reviews for, Paul's
> > > > last three studio albums?
> > >
> > > Yes. I see that the critics are admiring his energy. Nobody's saying
> > > these songs measure up to Beatle standards. Again, it's the delivery
> > > of material reminiscent of earlier "good stuff", combined with the
> > > realization that half the Beatles are gone.
Only 1/4 of the Beatles were gone when the Driving Rain reviews came
out. Anyway, you're confirming one of my points, which was that the
critical community has largely affirmed that Paul's recent stuff is
pretty good, or at least that he is on an upswing rather than a
downslide, compared to much of the critically-reviled material he
released so frequently earlier in his career.
> > > I've also read some
> > > "customer reviews" that don't go along with the critics. Remember, RS
> > > gave Mick Jagger's solo 4 stars. They had more good things to say
> > > about it than they said about Paul's.
> > >
> >
> > Didn't they give it 5 stars?
>
> Yes, you're right. I know they liked the record better than they liked
> Driving Rain. So did I.
>
> > That was inexpicable to me. I thought
> > it was great when they gave Paul 4 I think, but then I read their love
> > letter to Mick's album and that kind of made me think the Paul review
> > wasn't really worth much after all.
> >
>
> Oh, so you admit you dismiss any criticism of Paul's current product
> if it comes from someone who really liked "Goddess"?
>
No, I said any PRAISE (not criticism) of Paul's current product means
less to me if the same person also said "Goddess" was great.
> > Anyway, I'm talking about not just a specific review from a prominent
> > source, I was talking about the general trend overall among ALL the
> > many reviews I've read of these albums.
>
> Sorry but I stopped reading his reviews (except for NYorker and RS)
> years ago. I listen to the record first, and make my own judgments.
>
> > Flaming Pie and Driving Rain
> > both seemed to get generally good reaction, usually (yes) tempered and
> > sort of polite, but Run Devil Run got fantastic reviews, from a lot of
> > very credible sources who WOULDN't hesitate for a second to dis
> > McCartney, I'm POSITIVE.
> >
>
> I'm sure you're right. Doesn't make any difference to me. I still
> think there are a lot of freakouts about the fact that there are just
> two Beatles left. The "rock generation" is facing their own mortality.
Same as your previous point about critics supposedly being afraid to
dis Paul. Basically, you're coming up with a more complicated,
behind-the-scenes "explanation" for why he's getting lots of good
reviews, rather than consider the fact that it might be because the
writers listening admired the music, which in turn might indicate (if
it's a lot of writers and critics sharing that same impression) that
it's not bad.
No way, I was talking about composition and arranging as well.
> Does Paul write
> good pop songs that are fun to listen to and sing along with? Sure he
> does. He still plays a hot bass sometimes.
Hot bass playing is definitely art IMO - instrumental performance at
its best expresses emotions better than lyrics I'd say.
Oh well, I don't have time to go through the rest of your post right
now.
Definitely a good chat, though, talk to you later on.
richforman
Rich Forman
> that you are able to discuss your opinions with people who think
> differently - without attempting to destroy the other's point of view
> for the sake of "conventional wisdom".
>
> Thank you.
>
> Francie
'Preciate that (and would you please explain about the 50
ways....whoops, sorry, my brain's always doing that involuntarily).
More to follow.....
richforman