|
Post by sayne on Jun 19, 2009 16:21:21 GMT -5
I just read a story about Jon Bon Jovi being inducted into the Songwriters Hall of Fame, along with Crosby, Stills, and Nash. Out of curiosity, I went to the Hall of Fame's website and found this in the first paragraph about John Lennon, "Strawberry Fields Forever," "Let It Be" and "All You Need Is Love," - all of them bespeak the spirit of the late John Lennon, the man of peace, the man of music. And all of them too, are the result of one of the greatest collaborations in the history of modern popular music. Whaddya think? I woulda thought they'd be more scholarly accurate.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 20, 2009 23:20:04 GMT -5
Heh. Well, in the words of Meatloaf, "two out of three ain't bad."
What does Paul's say, "From 'One After 909' to 'Across The Universe,' Paul McCartney was a driving force in the 1960's pop scene!'
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Jun 20, 2009 23:48:32 GMT -5
I can see why Paul would sometimes be paranoid as far as legacy goes.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 22, 2009 7:32:38 GMT -5
I can see why Paul would sometimes be paranoid as far as legacy goes. Of course you can.
|
|
|
Post by jimc on Jun 22, 2009 9:51:01 GMT -5
I can see why Paul would sometimes be paranoid as far as legacy goes. Of course you can. I've got to say, Joe, that although I'm not quite the Paul fan RTP is, this fact that Sayne has posted confirms the concerns many of us have about the legacy. The ignorant (and there will only be more in the future) take the path of least resistance, which is seems to be mostly John.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jun 22, 2009 10:29:47 GMT -5
I can see why Paul would sometimes be paranoid as far as legacy goes. Of course you can. I can, too. This is not the first case I've seen of John being given credit for what is primarily a Paul song. Conversely, I can't recall seeing Paul being given credit for what is primarily a John song. As I've said before, I think Paul had a point with reversing the credits on what were mainly his songs when he performed them solo.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 22, 2009 16:09:53 GMT -5
Well, maybe Paul can somehow reach solace within himself by being grateful he's lived a longer life, while John was snuffed out at 40. I mean, would Paul's vanity extend to the point where he'd rather be the deceased one who gets all the attention? I think that when the time comes that both John and Paul are no longer with us, the legacy as to who did what will be properly distributed. The quote which sayne offered is indeed annoying in its error, though, I must say. Okay, RTP - I'll take this one back.
|
|
|
Post by theman on Jun 22, 2009 21:02:53 GMT -5
I just read a story about Jon Bon Jovi being inducted into the Songwriters Hall of Fame, along with Crosby, Stills, and Nash. Out of curiosity, I went to the Hall of Fame's website and found this in the first paragraph about John Lennon, "Strawberry Fields Forever," "Let It Be" and "All You Need Is Love," - all of them bespeak the spirit of the late John Lennon, the man of peace, the man of music. And all of them too, are the result of one of the greatest collaborations in the history of modern popular music. Whaddya think? I woulda thought they'd be more scholarly accurate. I really don't take this as a slight of Paul at all. Read it again. All the comment tries to do is "suggest" that the spirit of those songs are a reflection of the spirit of John Lennon, a man of peace. It doesn't give him the full credit for writing those songs all by his lonesome. In fact, the next line references "And all of them too, are the result of one of the greatest collaborations in the history of modern popular music." I think we all tend to overreact a little too much to these perceived slights.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jun 23, 2009 4:35:34 GMT -5
Well, maybe Paul can somehow reach solace within himself by being grateful he's lived a longer life, while John was snuffed out at 40. I mean, would Paul's vanity extend to the point where he'd rather be the deceased one who gets all the attention? While we can never fully divest ourselves of the fact that one of the factors weighing heavily on the perception of John's life and work is the timing and manner of his death, it really should have no bearing on evaluating the artistic achievements of the two men, and how those achievements are remembered. Joe, you appear to be saying that Paul should shut up and accept it when his contribution is assumed to be John's, because that is a reasonable quid pro quo for not having been murdered. I can't believe that's what you really mean.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 23, 2009 6:04:51 GMT -5
While we can never fully divest ourselves of the fact that one of the factors weighing heavily on the perception of John's life and work is the timing and manner of his death, it really should have no bearing on evaluating the artistic achievements of the two men, and how those achievements are remembered. Of course it shouldn't - but it does (I'm not saying for ME). At least that's what I hear alot from people, and I think Paul himself believes that... Paul is vain, always has been. I think he's worrying too much about nothing, because when he's gone it will all be sorted out. People will know that he wrote YESTERDAY and not John, if it's that important to him when he's dead. Even while John was still alive people mistook songs like YESTERDAY (or MICHELLE, when John was on Mike Douglas) as a Lennon song. I am saying that Paul is making way too much out of it and is being unnecessarily concerned. Paul has basically come across with the attitude of "now that John is gone, everything is all about John". This jealousy makes me wonder if Paul wishes it could have been him.
|
|
|
Post by jimc on Jun 23, 2009 10:47:39 GMT -5
But Joe, why would we assume it will be "all sorted out" after he's dead? I think it's less likely to be the case then. And as you pointed out, it seems to be always Paul's songs, before or after Lennon's death, that are attributed to John. Rarely is it the other way around. And to be fair here, I'm one of those doing the bitching here. ;D Paul has been rather quiet about these types of issues lately, I think. We're just keeping it "real."
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 23, 2009 16:57:50 GMT -5
But Joe, why would we assume it will be "all sorted out" after he's dead? I think it's less likely to be the case then. And as you pointed out, it seems to be always Paul's songs, before or after Lennon's death, that are attributed to John. Rarely is it the other way around. And to be fair here, I'm one of those doing the bitching here. ;D Paul has been rather quiet about these types of issues lately, I think. We're just keeping it "real." I think books will show (as they do already) who wrote what, that's all. People know now (and will know forever through music history books) that John's baby was STAWBERRY FIELDS, and Paul's was HEY JUDE. You're right in that it's hard to think of an example where it's a John song that's attributed to Paul, but I'm suggesting that if McCartney had died in 1980 instead of John, a lot of media and mass audiences would practically hail Paul as having wrote this or that. But in the end, Jim, I think the biggest problem is that the two Beatles labeled everything as "Lennon & McCartney"... so therefore, it's pretty much presumed either man wrote the song, or both. On the Mike Douglas show, when Mike said, when introducing John: "MICHELLE was written by this gentleman", he was basically figuring that every song was to some extent written by John, since they're "Lennon & McCartney originals". If Paul had been on the Douglas show, I'd bet Mike would have introduced Paul in the exact same way, if you see what I mean? EVERY Beatles song is written by John, and written by Paul - in many people's minds. The question is why has McCartney now in his old age gotten all nervous about wanting to be recognized "soley" as the writer on this or that song, where John was not involved? Why is it so important?
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 23, 2009 18:41:44 GMT -5
Well, maybe Paul can somehow reach solace within himself by being grateful he's lived a longer life, while John was snuffed out at 40. I mean, would Paul's vanity extend to the point where he'd rather be the deceased one who gets all the attention? I've wondered if Paul himself realized this as he seems to be counseling himself in rare B-side "Simple As That:" "I know it isn't easy to refuse A lot of thoughts are flying thru' your head Tell me this before you have to choose Would you rather be alive or dead? It's as simple as that Would you rather be alive or dead It's as simple as that, it's so simple It makes you wanna cry.They ask you if you wanna join in You linger for a minute or so Well now's a perfect time to begin Are you gonna say yes or no? It's as simple as that Are you gonna say yes or no? If s as simple as that, it's so simple It makes you wanna cry And if you love your life Everybody will love you too Yes if you love your life Everybody will love you too.It's harder when you start to get round I want you to remember what I said I know you never like to let them down But would you rather be alive or dead? It's as simple as that Would you rather be alive or dead? It's as simple as that, if s so simple It makes me wanna cry Yes if you love your life Everybody will love you too And if you love your life Everybody will love you too Would you rather be alive or dead? Would you rather be alive or dead? Would you? It's as simple as that It's as simple as that It's as simple as that And if you love your life Everybody will love you too Yes if you love your life Everybody will love you too." It is rare for Paul to talk about death except recently with "End Of The End." This song seems like a pep talk addressing what Joe is talking about.
|
|
|
Post by jimc on Jun 23, 2009 19:32:54 GMT -5
I thought he wrote "Simple as That" for some anti-heroin project.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 24, 2009 0:01:10 GMT -5
I thought he wrote "Simple as That" for some anti-heroin project. It did appear on the charity album The Anti-Heroin Project-It's A Live-In World. I first heard it though as a bonus track to the 1993 re-issued Pipes Of Peace, part of The Paul McCartney Collection and as I sat there listening to it in my headphones, the very first thing I thought of was this whole tug of war with the legacy thing: that one wouldn't want to be killed to become a legend or martyr. John Lennon sure as hell wasn't seeking that. Reading the liner notes, I saw that it was part of that anti-heroin project but it sounded to me like Paul was also giving himself a pep talk, and not about refraining from heroin! Probably not but it struck me that way when I was just focusing in on the lyrics and not placing where the song had come from. I am still of the belief that "Two Of Us" was more about John than road trips with Linda; that "Dear Boy" was as much about John as Melvin See and that "Somedays" was about Linda's illness and not just some song Paul wrote to kill time as he says in the Flaming Pie liner notes.
|
|
|
Post by jimc on Jun 24, 2009 10:30:21 GMT -5
I don't that it's possible, John, as to Simple as That. And I agree completely with you about Two of Us. Overall, there are many songs in the solo years that I think can be read as at least somewhat about John.
And Somedays -- definitely as you said. In fact I was listening to Flaming Pie last night. I'd forgotten how good that song is.
Speaking of interpreting lyrics: I've always taken The World Tonight to be somewhat George-related. He worked on this as Anthology was finishing. The sound of the song (sure, it has something to do with Jeff Lynne's involvement), the lyrics about wanting to avoid the limelight, and the way he sings -- "I saw you standing there" -- remind me of George.
(As I typed that, never realized how close that was to "I Saw Her Standing There.")
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 24, 2009 11:29:36 GMT -5
I don't that it's possible, John, as to Simple as That. And I agree completely with you about Two of Us. Overall, there are many songs in the solo years that I think can be read as at least somewhat about John. And Somedays -- definitely as you said. In fact I was listening to Flaming Pie last night. I'd forgotten how good that song is. Speaking of interpreting lyrics: I've always taken The World Tonight to be somewhat George-related. He worked on this as Anthology was finishing. The sound of the song (sure, it has something to do with Jeff Lynne's involvement), the lyrics about wanting to avoid the limelight, and the way he sings -- "I saw you standing there" -- remind me of George. (As I typed that, never realized how close that was to "I Saw Her Standing There.") That's a good call on "The World Tonight." Thinking about it, I too can hear a George angle there. And I definitely hear it on the wonderful "Friends To Go" where Paul admitted to be going for a George sound. I am of the school that Paul's lyrics say much more than people give him credit for. And John Lennon said that Paul was coy or humble about his great bass playing but I think Paul likewise keeps a tight lid or is coy on the inspiration for his lyrics. Unlike John, Paul likes to keep his emotions close to his vest. Thus I am particularly thrilled when Paul does a "Riding To Vanity Fair" for instance which is pretty blunt. Going back to this Hall of Fame for Songwriters, I guess the second sentence sayne provided from that organization covers its butt about the songwriting team but I agree "Let It Be" should not have been used as an illustration in the first sentence when speaking of only John. That does seem sloppy research. Not one person on this Board would have listed LIB if we had been asked to write the John intro.
|
|
|
Post by jimc on Jun 24, 2009 14:26:35 GMT -5
But Joe, why would we assume it will be "all sorted out" after he's dead? I think it's less likely to be the case then. And as you pointed out, it seems to be always Paul's songs, before or after Lennon's death, that are attributed to John. Rarely is it the other way around. And to be fair here, I'm one of those doing the bitching here. ;D Paul has been rather quiet about these types of issues lately, I think. We're just keeping it "real." I think books will show (as they do already) who wrote what, that's all. People know now (and will know forever through music history books) that John's baby was STAWBERRY FIELDS, and Paul's was HEY JUDE. You're right in that it's hard to think of an example where it's a John song that's attributed to Paul, but I'm suggesting that if McCartney had died in 1980 instead of John, a lot of media and mass audiences would practically hail Paul as having wrote this or that. But in the end, Jim, I think the biggest problem is that the two Beatles labeled everything as "Lennon & McCartney"... so therefore, it's pretty much presumed either man wrote the song, or both. On the Mike Douglas show, when Mike said, when introducing John: "MICHELLE was written by this gentleman", he was basically figuring that every song was to some extent written by John, since they're "Lennon & McCartney originals". If Paul had been on the Douglas show, I'd bet Mike would have introduced Paul in the exact same way, if you see what I mean? EVERY Beatles song is written by John, and written by Paul - in many people's minds. The question is why has McCartney now in his old age gotten all nervous about wanting to be recognized "soley" as the writer on this or that song, where John was not involved? Why is it so important? Again, I'm not hearing much from Paul on any of this these days, or if he is talking I haven't seen the reports. This is all just coming from us thin-skinned "mad-hatters." We just see this differently, I suppose. If it were me, I'd care a lot as well.
|
|