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 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.
"I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
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.
he didnt 'stow it away' .. he has tried to release it on various occasions only to be refused by the Harrison estate... John was very much into the making of it... but its a piece that was made in response to a request by a painter friend of Pauls... he didnt do it so he could create an aura of intrigue around it... it was a piece that was meant to be heard... its been left in the vault for various reasons... but wanting the world to know he was some avant-garde composer isnt one of them... he was in the Beatles... he probably doesnt need much more credit.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
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'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 remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
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.
nonsense.
" 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.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
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
Yeah, and there's nothing so valuable in our appreciation of music as having sacred cows who can't be criticised is there?
"I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
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:
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:
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
" 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.
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.
"I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
Yeah, and there's nothing so valuable in our appreciation of music as having sacred cows who can't be criticised is there?
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...
i'll leave the final word to it for Finsy who is much better at being all wordy n shit for you
I think Paul McCartney deserves a lot more credit than he gets, for elevating popular music above the constraints of blues-based rock (even though he was a great blues shouter with a lot of Ray Charles soul, on albums such as Beatles for Sale or songs such as I'm Down). He was listening to Stockhausen and incorporating classical music - before George Martin could push it - into song arrangements, way before King Crimson, ELP or the prog movement started strutting its bellbottoms across rock's glittering floor. When Paul combined classicism with popular music, he would do it in an unpretentious way, and he would never lose track of the centrality of a song and its hit potential, even on an album. That kind of ear for balance between art and commerce requires nothing short of genius. After the Beatles, he lost that particular focus, I think, but with The Beatles, he was a prime mover. With regard to the avant garde nature of The Beatles, people often talk of Lennon's musique concrete piece, Revolution 9, but Paul was the brains and ears behind the tape loops on John's Tomorrow Never Knows, and the as-yet unreleased Carnival of Light.
Paul was the man who got Hendrix booked for Monterey; the man who was hanging out at UFO checking out Barrett's Floyd from the start; and who was also down the Indica gallery while John was playing recluse in his Weybridge mock tudor mansion.
If he wasn't at the vanguard, he was pretty near it. So, he was light and fluffy a lot of the time. So he wrote some execrable pap. He also wrote many of the most unselfconsciously surrealist songs in rock (even a throwaway ditty such as Martha My Dear, though a cod-twenties ode to a sheepdog, had chord shifts and modulations that most bands in the day would kill for).
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
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:
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.
And no, I don't think Rothko would be that fussed about an old, lost canvas being displayed. He had issues with the role of the artist and felt guilty about anyone seeing and appreciating his work. He's also dead.
"I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
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.
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...
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
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...
[/i]
I've never refused to acknowledge his creative input, or rather the extent of it, I just question the WORTH of it, as is my right.
Like I've said, I think McCartney is, or rather was (I've not heard a single post-Beatles song I've liked that I can recall offhand) a very talented individual. Some of the songs he wrote for the Beatles are absolutely amazing. A lot were shit though. I refuse to blindly worship the guy because he is a Beatle when I find a lot of his music to be not just bad but objectionably bad.
"I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
You can always tell wanna-be's apart from real music fans when they diss Paul McCartney.
Oh dear.
"I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
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.
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.
[jeremy]
And no, I don't think Rothko would be that fussed about an old, lost canvas being displayed. He had issues with the role of the artist and felt guilty about anyone seeing and appreciating his work. He's also dead.
[/quote]
sbstitute Rothko for some other artist you like then... you got my point... no need to become aloof. i know the cunt is dead... probably died of boredom of looking at his own paintings.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
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...
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
"I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
Yeah, and there's nothing so valuable in our appreciation of music as having sacred cows who can't be criticised is there?
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
Someone like Mcartney is on a hiding to nothing, he had unsurmountable success in his early career....whatever could he have done since to better it? Should he have shut himself off from the world...?..be fair, what on earth could he have done since the Beatles that was even nearly good? Nothing! He shouldn't be continually hammered for everything....apart from the Frog chorus, give him as much shit for that as you want
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.
If you "don't care" about his accomplishments, this only proves that you are proud to be an ignoramous. What's the fucking point of this stupid thread then? To prove what an arrogant ass you are when it comes to one of the greatest, most accomplished musicians who has ever lived?
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.
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.
"I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
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
This is rich :rolleyes:
Read what I just said to Dunk.
"I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
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
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.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
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
I'd like you to read it. Perhaps it will shed light on some of the hypocrisy here.
"I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
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.
I did?
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.
"I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
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.
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..
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
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.
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
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
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..
Where has all this about Rothko come from? I'm not a big fan or anything.
That said, I don't see why a work that looks like it is by the hand of an epileptic thalidomide victim is necessarily to be the object of contempt. Certainly more than one McCartney composition could be described in a similar way. Wild Honey Pie for instance. There's no reason why someone else shouldn't like it though.
"I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
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.
"I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
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.
your opinion carries weight within yourself... everyone else thinks you excrete from your fingertips
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
Comments
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.
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.
he didnt 'stow it away' .. he has tried to release it on various occasions only to be refused by the Harrison estate... John was very much into the making of it... but its a piece that was made in response to a request by a painter friend of Pauls... he didnt do it so he could create an aura of intrigue around it... it was a piece that was meant to be heard... its been left in the vault for various reasons... but wanting the world to know he was some avant-garde composer isnt one of them... he was in the Beatles... he probably doesnt need much more credit.
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:
As our Scots contingent points out....Mcartney was in the Beatles...that's enough
nonsense.
" 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.
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:
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...
i'll leave the final word to it for Finsy who is much better at being all wordy n shit for you
I think Paul McCartney deserves a lot more credit than he gets, for elevating popular music above the constraints of blues-based rock (even though he was a great blues shouter with a lot of Ray Charles soul, on albums such as Beatles for Sale or songs such as I'm Down). He was listening to Stockhausen and incorporating classical music - before George Martin could push it - into song arrangements, way before King Crimson, ELP or the prog movement started strutting its bellbottoms across rock's glittering floor. When Paul combined classicism with popular music, he would do it in an unpretentious way, and he would never lose track of the centrality of a song and its hit potential, even on an album. That kind of ear for balance between art and commerce requires nothing short of genius. After the Beatles, he lost that particular focus, I think, but with The Beatles, he was a prime mover. With regard to the avant garde nature of The Beatles, people often talk of Lennon's musique concrete piece, Revolution 9, but Paul was the brains and ears behind the tape loops on John's Tomorrow Never Knows, and the as-yet unreleased Carnival of Light.
Paul was the man who got Hendrix booked for Monterey; the man who was hanging out at UFO checking out Barrett's Floyd from the start; and who was also down the Indica gallery while John was playing recluse in his Weybridge mock tudor mansion.
If he wasn't at the vanguard, he was pretty near it. So, he was light and fluffy a lot of the time. So he wrote some execrable pap. He also wrote many of the most unselfconsciously surrealist songs in rock (even a throwaway ditty such as Martha My Dear, though a cod-twenties ode to a sheepdog, had chord shifts and modulations that most bands in the day would kill for).
And no, I don't think Rothko would be that fussed about an old, lost canvas being displayed. He had issues with the role of the artist and felt guilty about anyone seeing and appreciating his work. He's also dead.
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...
Like I've said, I think McCartney is, or rather was (I've not heard a single post-Beatles song I've liked that I can recall offhand) a very talented individual. Some of the songs he wrote for the Beatles are absolutely amazing. A lot were shit though. I refuse to blindly worship the guy because he is a Beatle when I find a lot of his music to be not just bad but objectionably bad.
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.
[jeremy]
And no, I don't think Rothko would be that fussed about an old, lost canvas being displayed. He had issues with the role of the artist and felt guilty about anyone seeing and appreciating his work. He's also dead.
[/quote]
sbstitute Rothko for some other artist you like then... you got my point... no need to become aloof. i know the cunt is dead... probably died of boredom of looking at his own paintings.
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
Someone like Mcartney is on a hiding to nothing, he had unsurmountable success in his early career....whatever could he have done since to better it? Should he have shut himself off from the world...?..be fair, what on earth could he have done since the Beatles that was even nearly good? Nothing! He shouldn't be continually hammered for everything....apart from the Frog chorus, give him as much shit for that as you want
If you "don't care" about his accomplishments, this only proves that you are proud to be an ignoramous. What's the fucking point of this stupid thread then? To prove what an arrogant ass you are when it comes to one of the greatest, most accomplished musicians who has ever lived?
It has nothing to do with George Bush, moron. Stick to writing your lame critique threads. It's fun to watch people act stupid.
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.
Read what I just said to Dunk.
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.
No...I can't be bothered, you two are going at it like a Geek tragedy
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.
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
That said, I don't see why a work that looks like it is by the hand of an epileptic thalidomide victim is necessarily to be the object of contempt. Certainly more than one McCartney composition could be described in a similar way. Wild Honey Pie for instance. There's no reason why someone else shouldn't like it though.
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.
your opinion carries weight within yourself... everyone else thinks you excrete from your fingertips