I dont need to build a case... music history has built the case... its cool to diss McCartney... as Jeremy90210 will no doubt prove by posting a post about how McCartney should be dismissed because he was into avant-garde electronica when he shouldnt have been.
I despise Paul McCartney with an almost frightening intensity and rage.
My reasons are numerous and I'd hate to bore you all with the details so I'll address one that Dunk brought up. McCartney's assertion that he was into Karlheinz Stockhausen to make him seem like some kind of avant-garde innovator is hilarious. I've listened to Stockhausen, I've appreciated Stockhausen. If I were to enter a studio and tell everyone in the room to bang every instrument and surface, record it for 14 minutes and then engulf it in reverb, before stowing it away for 40 years with a nice name like "Carnival of Light" and then brought it out and told everyone how experimental I was and how I was the only person in pop listening to Stockhausen and Cage, you'd all think I was a terrible cunt and you know it. Stockhausen was a composer, not a pop star who liked to make noises.
its not his assertion... its been documented well before his own biography noted his interest in Stockhausen. George Martin mentions it in a very early Beatles book i have that documents the making of Sgt Peppers... Paul never blew it up as his thing... it was what he was in to.
I didn't say he shouldn't have been into it, I said that he thought he was a genius and innovator of it and it annoys me because most of his experimental excursions were shite and he was at his absolute best when he writing absolutely genius pop songs when they were a "boy band".
He can listen to whatever music he wants to, I'm just entitled to express my disdain for how he implemented it into his own work.
jamie uk wrote:
Methinks the watch word once again for the 'alternative, too cool for school pumnk rockers' is......popularity breeds contempt :rolleys:
As our Scots contingent points out....Mcartney was in the Beatles...that's enough
I'm not disputing that he was into it. My point is that he talks about it now, and has done in the past, in a manner intended to show how innovative he was back when everyone else was just making pop music. He mentioned Stockhausen and Cage in relation to Carnival of Light recently.
All I am getting at is that if McCartney now recorded a hip-hop album because he has been listening to NWA and Biggie Smalls, it would almost certainly be an embarrassing, hashed together pastiche, much like almost ALL of his "innovative" experimental songs with the Beatles were, and everyone would tell him to fuck off. I don't see why this is any different.
"The piece was inspired, McCartney says, by the works of composers John Cage and Karlheinz Stockhausen. In his book Complete Beatles Recording Sessions, author Mark Lewisohn - who was played the track in 1987 - describes 'distorted, hypnotic drum and organ sounds, a distorted lead guitar, the sound of a church organ, various effects (water gargling was one) and, perhaps most intimidating of all, Lennon and McCartney screaming and bawling random phrases including "Are you all right?" and '"Barcelona!".'"
Now I find a lot of Stockhausen's stuff to be of debatable worth in terms of listening but in 1950 it was impressive from an innovative point if nothing else. I wonder just what possible reason McCartney can have for releasing anything that can be described in the way above other than just to see whether Beatles fans really will buy and listen to whatever is sold to them.
But just my opinion of course. Now you can call me a snob and make digs about me being pretentious :rolleyes:
" I said that he thought he was a genius and innovator of it "
find me one quote where McCartney even alludes to this.
his experimental excursions are the sounds behind Tomorrow Never kNows amongst others.
Yeah, and there's nothing so valuable in our appreciation of music as having sacred cows who can't be criticised is there?
bit in bold... for the same reason Lennon wanted people to hear No.9.. he is fucking minted... he wanted to release it many times in the past... but George vetoed it... but now he wants people to hear it.. he's an artist... he thrives on people appreciating his art... wouldnt you want a hidden Rothko painting that has been under a sheet to be displayed after 40 years on the shelves? artists need that appreciation...
i totally disagree with your points that he only talks about it to show people he was into it... i've read many books (revolution in the head being the best) about the music scene back then and Paul was very much into all this stuff and never publivly promoted it... after 30 years isnt he entitled to display his own inspirations... so Stockhausen did it in the 1950's? so fucking what... thats like saying all blues music is null and void as Robert Johnson did it in the 20's. :rolleyes:
I would compile a playlist of shoddy self-indulgent crap that McCartney put on the later Beatles records to stand as a "quote" indicating this but I know you'll disagree with me so there's not much point. Put it this way, either McCartney likes making crap experimental music and knows it's crap and doesn't care or he thinks it's not crap. If it's the latter then it supports my view, if it's the former then fair play to him if he enjoys it. Doesn't mean I have to stop thinking he's a tedious arse though, I'm sure he doesn't care about my little opinion.
you can criticise, as can i, but acknowledging his creative input into the beatles would be a good start... then we can tear into him or Obl-De-Obli-Da...
You can always tell wanna-be's apart from real music fans when they diss Paul McCartney.
As I just said, most of Stockhausen's music isn't very interesting to listen to, it was just innovative. McCartney doing a pastiche of it is neither interesting to listen to nor innovative, doing it 20 years later and with a far more cavalier attitude to it, judging by the actual compositional method Stockhausen's work was very technical, just atonal and difficult to engage with. His scores were meticulously written. Whether that makes his music interesting is debatable. McCartney's approach is like 20th Century Avantism for Dummies. He's ENTITLED to it, he can make whatever music he wants, it just makes him seem like an arse in my opinion when he thinks other people should hear it.
thats supposition... and a poor one at that... he never has once said 'he thought he was a genius and innovator of it'
he enjoyed it, still does....
"either McCartney likes making crap experimental music and knows it's crap and doesn't care or he thinks it's not crap. If it's the latter then it supports my view, if it's the former then fair play to him if he enjoys it."
if its the latter then isnt that just your opinion that its crap? your not judge and jury dude... you dislike him so you carry that into anything he might have done... The Fireman record is pretty good, interesting stuff.. but you'll nevber know.. because of your pre-conceived arrogance that all he does is pretentious crap. I'm allowed to say this cos if you ask me to listen to jazz or reggae pish then i'll call it shit without listening to it
if its the former, then good on him.. either way i bet he doesnt give a shit what we think...
I couldn't give two shits about the Beatles.
I also couldn't give a shit about his supposed musicianship. If I did then I'd probably be into jazz and/or classical music.
Paul McCartney is pointless.
By the way, nice username. It speaks volumes.
McCartneys 'pastiche' has been listened to and enjoyed much more than Stockhausens.... 93.6% of music fans have no idea who stockhausen is... every fucker knows McCartney... you're just being your elitist snobbish self with this .. it makes him an arse cos he thinks people want to listen to his music? thats 100% of all recorded musicians then... Led Zeppelin? they robbed the blues... so you think their music/legacy/fans are fucking pointless then? dinnae answer... i dont care.
jamie uk wrote:
Nothing so valuable in our appreciation of anything, as the ability to just enjoy whatever the hell we like without the fear of over analysis by over bearing 'knowitall' critiques
Aye but this is the thing Dunk, it IS just my opinion. I've never seen a law that says we are entitled to some opinions but not others. Seems that somewhere along the lines an unwritten rule came into effect that McCartney is untouchable. I've not heard the Fireman record and I hope I never do. I've heard enough of the guy's music that I'm entitled to express my thoughts on it, or are you only allowed to do that if you like him? The internet is hardly serious business, I can rant and rave about the guy if I like. I don't like him. You're a cynical arrogant bastard about a lot of stuff too. Let's live and let hate
This is rich :rolleyes:
Read what I just said to Dunk.
jamie uk wrote:
No...I can't be bothered, you two are going at it like a Geek tragedy try and digest those dictionaries, the pair of you
ahh but he's not untouchable... he's made some drivel.. but saying he wasnt innovative is just wrong.. he made the fucking bass guitar an instrument... he made tape loops common practice,... harpsichord solos... but you dismiss because of his success, and thats immature.
your 2nd last sentence is true.
How am I being my elitist, snobbish self? I never even expressed a liking for Stockhausen, I never said he is enjoyed by anyone, I never said I find a great deal of worth in his music.
Tell me Duncan, say McCartney had never gone down this route, if I banged on some shit right now for 14 minutes and shouted Barcelona over it and then uploaded it to the internet and asked you to listen to it, would you say it was worth people hearing it or would you have called me a pretentious, faux-arty pseudo-intellectual snob cunt?
I think we know the answer to that question. After all, I'm not allowed to say anything here without people calling me a snob because I choose not to only listen to the Beatles, read Jeremy Clarkson books, look at Bob Ross paintings and censor every idea I have in case someone thinks I've got delusions of grandeur.
That's funny. You see, not once have I ever thought about McCartney's success as a reason why I dislike him, I've certainly not posted about it.
it just makes him seem like an arse in my opinion when he thinks other people should hear it.
Uh huh but Lennon wasn't going around talking about how innovative and avant-garde he was, I'm sure he knew damn well his Two Virgins type albums were pure shite. McCartney thinks he's a genius. He's not, he wrote some good pop songs over 40 yeard ago. He's actually preparing to release a song that was neither good enough for release at the time, nor was it good enough for inclusion on their odds-and-sods Anthologies, because the other members deemed it to be self-indulgent crap. Now he thinks it's worthy of release because it will, in his own words, show how experimental he has always been.
He's so far up his own arse it's unreal.
i dunno... when Carnival of Light comes out i'll think its shite, just as i think No.9 is shite... just as i think Heyfoxymophandleme or whatever its called is shite... but i cant dismiss mccartneys breaking of the mold, the barriers..
Blackbird is one of the most beautiful songs i've ever heard... ergo i like it... Rothko paintings look like someone gave an epileptic thalidomide victim a sponge and 2 paints... but i get Picasso, Van Gogh, Bacon, etc..
so you... the world renowned critic... think he isnt a genius? that he's written 'some good pop songs'?
I'm out. you doth maketh me laugheth
In what way are the two posts you just quoted linked at all?
And seriously, fuck off with this "world renowned critic" shit. You are the one who thinks this, not me. You are the one with some issue about what you perceive as my arrogance. I'm just passing comment, you're the one tagging me as someone who thinks his opinion carries weight. Sounds like you take my posts a hell of a lot more seriously than I do.