|
Post by nicole21290 on May 24, 2012 7:21:56 GMT -5
I'm with you Nichole. Paul is a fascinating character. He among all the biggest rock stars has maintained a good head on his shoulders and his feet on the ground. He never got mixed up heavily in drugs, he raised a solid family, didn't go crazy with material things-money, cars, homes, loved one woman for 30 years until her death and still managed to have a career that any musician would envy. He didn't have it easy. Despite his mother's early death, John's death, Linda's and George's death, he has maintained his sanity and still treats the fans with respect and will give autographs most times. You don't find many like him. Look at Mick and Keith. I am sure they have regrets about bad, self indulgent, dangerous and juvenile behavior. If they don't they should. Paul, on the other hand, likely does not. Oh, RTP -- you're going to be in for a rude awakening after Paul dies and all the truths he has always hidden about himself come out in the open. No, he does not treat fans with respect most times. When the cameras are on him for some publicity, sure. But there are many stories like mine about Paul behaving like a jerk to fans. I think RTP does go slightly too far but I also don't think we can justifiably say "most times" he doesn't treat fans with respect. We don't see him "most times" so we can't categorically say that. Yes, there are some stories like yours where Paul was a jerk. There are also stories where he was completely lovely to strangers/fans, again with no cameras. There are unpublicised stories where he's somewhat stingy with his cash and then there are unpublicised stories where he's incredibly generous to those in need. I really don't think we can say one's more true but, yeah, I'd expect some more of the public mask and persona Paul often wears to slip after he's passed - both the endearing and the infuriating aspects of his life and personality will be brought to life more than they probably currently are.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on May 24, 2012 9:34:34 GMT -5
It makes more sense than Imagine There's No Nation. It's a pity you take it so offensively. It's the hope for all of us coming together as one and getting along. That's at the root of all your objections, and is what counts. It's imagination, not a call to overturn the gov't. You don't need to quote me the lyrics, I know them. It's another fruity and safe Paulie piece of cheese. Catchy cheese, but cheese just the same. Paul wishes he could write something like IMAGINE. I don't see anything fruity or cheezy about these lyrics. This story happens many times each day around the world. Hundreds of millions of people can relate to it. Its the ouline of many people's lives. I think the line "Desmond says to Molly "girl I like your face" is so direct and honest because that is mainly how we evaluate each other when we first meet. No one can write more concisely and directly than Paul. As for Imagine, I doubt he has ever wished he wrote it because he doesn't believe half of it.
|
|
|
Post by dcshark on May 24, 2012 10:02:55 GMT -5
I think the pendulum has swung back in Paul’s favour, which is a good thing. I’m not sure if there will ever be a time when it will be 50/50. His book Many Years From Now really helped in this respect. Reading this book and Anthology really helped me understand Paul and the Beatles.
My family is an interesting case. My son, 17, likes Lennon and has Beatles/Lennon solo songs on his IPOD. He’s seen McCartney twice in concert. My daughter, 14, likes McCartney and has Beatles songs on her IPOD. She has also seen McCartney twice in concert. Her favorite song is I Am The Walrus. But this is a captive audience. ;D They have been listening to Beatles music since they were little.
My nephew, 14, on the other hand likes the Beatles and Lennon. I had no influence on him. He’s a musician and enjoys playing Beatles songs and Lennon solo songs. He’s good at playing them, too. But he seems to think that the Beatles were only about Lennon.
The pendulum has swung to Paul, it has for me anyway. I was a huge Lennon fan growing up, but now I have a better understanding of Paul's music than I did in my teens.
But Lennon will not be forgotten. His legacy is safe. Paul is just catching up
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on May 25, 2012 17:16:40 GMT -5
We all know that The Beatles consisted of four individuals, and that when it came to the great songwriting team of Lennon/McCartney, both writers there were Aces. For years now, however, RTP has been concerned that Paul has been mistreated and getting the short end of the stick... and he worries that new generations of fans think "John Was The Beatles!!" Of course I laugh this off, but now I'm starting to become RTP i n reverse ... the truth is, it's John Lennon who seems to be forgotten by newbies these days! Think about it. John has been gone for 32 years now... none of today's youngsters remember him from his time. To them, John was probably just some weird guy who married Yoko ... and made some songs about "peace" way, way, way, way back in the '60s and '70s. John Lennon is no longer part of the picture, and he is severely removed from the World Of 2012. We must NOT forget John Lennon! We must make sure everyone knows that the Beatles were four men -- and that PAUL McCARTNEY IS NOT "THE BEATLES"!! Save John Now!! What's your agenda here Joe - to trumpet the talents of John Lennon, or to simply agitate, bait, and start ANOTHER bruhaha with RTP? No trainwreck jokes here. This is so lame, tiring, and old. And no need to remind me that I can just ignore it and move on. I'm aware of that option. Yeah, people are going to forget John.
|
|
|
Post by coachbk on May 25, 2012 21:28:27 GMT -5
First off I have to say I was really struck my Nicole's comments. A much more eloquent of stating the same type of feelings I have that Paul's solo work speaks to me more than John's. I too never shared in the "teen angst/rebel" phase. In the Beatles I find the work of Lennon and McCartney equally fascinating and personally moving. Also wanted to add my two cents worth about my own kids. Both are big Beatles fans. My daughter (28) considers the Beatles her 2nd favorite group (after the Kinks). Most of her favorite Beatles songs are John's work (Strawberry Fields, In My Life, Across The Universe) but she has equal praise for Paul. She likes George a lot too. She doesn't have a lot of knowledge of the solo careers. "I Got My Mind Set On You" was her favorite song when it came out. She used to go around singing it and she loved the "backflip" in the video. I know she really liked "My Brave Face" too. The solo albums she knows best are CLOUD NINE, ALL THINGS MUST PASS, BAND ON THE RUN, RINGO and DOUBLE FANTASY (I know she loves "Instant Karma".) I would say she is most familiar with Paul's solo stuff, then probably George. My son (age 23) is a musician himself. The Beatles are his favorite group. When he lists his Beatles favorites there are as many George songs (he loves the Indian and psychedelic stuff) as there are John and Paul songs. He clearly recognizes that the key to the Beatles was John AND Paul and is more apt to refer to songs as Beatles songs rather than John or Paul songs and gets irritated by people who try to boost one over the other in the Beatles. Solo, it is no contest. Paul is his favorite by far. I would say RAM is his favorite album with BAND ON THE RUN right there with it. Interestingly, he recently said that ELECTRIC ARGUMENTS would rank right with those two in his mind. I know he really likes the CONCERT FOR GEORGE and the BANGLADESH live show. He feels ALL THINGS MUST PASS is good, but overproduced. I know he likes "It Don't Come Easy" a lot. He's never really expressed much enthusiasm for John's solo work except for a few stray songs (he recently commented on how great "Oh My Love" was and has been playing it on the piano around the house). I know he too thinks "Instant Karma" is great. So for my kids they recognize John Lennon as a Beatle more than for what he did after that.
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on May 25, 2012 22:39:15 GMT -5
I don't get the criticism of John's solo career.
If you want to judge hits and chart positions then Paul is your man.
If you want to compare them as artists then John is by far the man. John through his music tried to create art that was both radical and popular, he tried with POB which was an artistic success but realised it wasn't popular, so he went back to popular art with Imagine. With SINYC , he tried to link rock with politics which didn't work either.
I see John as a true artist, a guy that stuggled with how to tell the truth through rock'n'roll, this was consistent with John from the Beatles years , through his solo career to the end of his life.
I don't see Paul in that way, Paul was more a music artist, he doesn't have much to say about anything , his music is his art, ie instrumentation, chords , in other words the sounds and melodies he can make.
Also there is a double standard when it comes to John's albums like Mind Games and Walls and Bridges and George's albums as well, those albums did very well with Walls and Bridges being a #1 album spawning a #1 hit and a Top 10 hit, yet it's considered a failure whereas Paul albums that didn't even have that success or were successful due to Paul's name aren't considered flops or bad albums.
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on May 26, 2012 6:51:45 GMT -5
I see John as a true artist, a guy that stuggled with how to tell the truth through rock'n'roll, this was consistent with John from the Beatles years , through his solo career to the end of his life. I don't see Paul in that way, Paul was more a music artist, he doesn't have much to say about anything , his music is his art, ie instrumentation, chords , in other words the sounds and melodies he can make. Just yesterday I was at my local used record store and a very young girl (no more than 16) purchased a vinyl copy of John's PLASTIC ONO BAND for $15. It made my day. ;D I don't there is any chance of John being forgotten, yes it's nice to see younger people getting interested in John, especially POB, that was a landmark album and to understand John you have to understand his struggle to be real and POB is a good place to discover this.
|
|
|
Post by nicole21290 on May 26, 2012 8:15:13 GMT -5
I don't get the criticism of John's solo career. I don't get the elevation of it I sometimes see. Nor do I understand a total dismissal of it. I love much of it, I like much of it and a proportion of it bores me or irritates me. Criticism of it is fine to me as long as it's justifiable and legitimate criticism and not a mere attack on the man, his opinions etc Hmm. I would say Paul is 'my man' in terms of what I enjoy listening to and admire and that has nothing to do with hits or chart positions. I've only been listening to him since 2010 and I certainly didn't favour him because or after looking up how successful or commercial his records were in comparison to John's! In fact, apart for a few exceptions I often find deep cuts off albums or B-sides to be far, far, far better than the songs Paul releases as singles. Ugh. See, I don't see that as a fair call at all. How did Paul suffer in comparison to John as an artist?! What exactly do you judge to be a 'true artist' then? Does an artist have to be radical, popular, introspective, angsty, existential in thought, rebelllious, what? I admire both POB and Imagine and think them both successful in what John was aiming for. I find SINYC a MUCH harder listen, to be perfectly honest, but if that's what he wanted to do, good for him. I don't see the inherent problem as trying to link rock & politics - just that many of the songs are too 'of their time' and I find much of the music dull and unadventurous. Paul also changed his albums in response to public opinion - McCartney was too homegrown and lofi so he made a more produced, finished album in RAM. That was demolished by press/others and he turned back to a rough and ready approach in Wild Life. Yes, John was a great musician and artist and person. I can appreciate how he was so able to incorporate his own thoughts and truths in his music even if these 'truths' changed over time, as they often did. I admire the man and his struggles but don't know why that makes him a 'true artist' more than others. John did tend to write more personal songs than narrative songs ala Paul but why does that make him more of a 'true artist'? I think Paul was more able and perhaps more confident in his ability with melody rather than lyrics and/or message but being a 'music' artist (whatever that means) doesn't necessarily mean he wasn't a 'true' artist (whatever that means). I would take GREAT issue with the statement that he doesn't have much to say about anything. Are the only valid statements in art those about personal angst, abandonment by parents issues, rebellion against government etc? John wrote many songs about his love for Yoko and Beautiful Boy for Sean - are they any less 'true' art than other songs such as Imagine or Gimme Some Truth? Likewise, are Paul's love songs any less 'true' than John's? I'm not overally fond of Paul's attempts at 'message' or political songs but they do exist (though not to the extent of John's) - are these 'true' art or just mere posturing as opposed to the truth contained in John's songs of the same nature? I would venture to say that Paul has plenty to say - he speaks of love for his wife and family, loss won and love lost, abandonment, separation, reconciliation, caring for others, reaching out to those who need it, belonging, loneliness, etc. Often these thoughts, emotions and 'truths' are wrapped in third person narratives about 'others' and not just himself but that, in no way, makes them 'less' about anything than a first-person introspective. Yes, Paul has a great gift with music and his melody and instrumentation convey his art but they do so with John as well. For me, I find Paul more musically diverse and interesting (and I find John more capable with lyrics MOST of the time) but they BOTH express their emotions, truths, art within both lyrics AND music, not only one to the exclusion of the other. I certainly don't consider Mind Games and Walls & Bridges 'failures' though I don't see them as artistically successful as Imagine or POB. I find many songs on both these albums to be fantastic and worthy of all the praise you want to shower them with. Some songs, naturally, I wouldn't advocate that for but by no means do I judge them failures. Where are these albums being called failures? In comparison to the mammoth albums that came before them (POB, Imagine, ATMP) or just in isolation? And where are these albums you speak of regarding Paul? Are you equating success with a lack of it being 'bad' here because that doesn't necessarily work. You need to also consider change in time - a Paul album such as Electric Arguments might be given huge plaudits and be called successful artistically but won't chart; the market has changed whereas a more mediocre album of his might've charted in the past merely because of its competition or, yes, his name (which, how is that unavoidable or even a problem?). Anyway, I've seen scant evidence of that kind of double standard but would be interested in seeing it, if it's around somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on May 26, 2012 9:17:59 GMT -5
I don't get the criticism of John's solo career. I don't get the elevation of it I sometimes see. Nor do I understand a total dismissal of it. I love much of it, I like much of it and a proportion of it bores me or irritates me. Criticism of it is fine to me as long as it's justifiable and legitimate criticism and not a mere attack on the man, his opinions etc Hmm. I would say Paul is 'my man' in terms of what I enjoy listening to and admire and that has nothing to do with hits or chart positions. I've only been listening to him since 2010 and I certainly didn't favour him because or after looking up how successful or commercial his records were in comparison to John's! In fact, apart for a few exceptions I often find deep cuts off albums or B-sides to be far, far, far better than the songs Paul releases as singles. Ugh. See, I don't see that as a fair call at all. How did Paul suffer in comparison to John as an artist?! What exactly do you judge to be a 'true artist' then? Does an artist have to be radical, popular, introspective, angsty, existential in thought, rebelllious, what? I admire both POB and Imagine and think them both successful in what John was aiming for. I find SINYC a MUCH harder listen, to be perfectly honest, but if that's what he wanted to do, good for him. I don't see the inherent problem as trying to link rock & politics - just that many of the songs are too 'of their time' and I find much of the music dull and unadventurous. Paul also changed his albums in response to public opinion - McCartney was too homegrown and lofi so he made a more produced, finished album in RAM. That was demolished by press/others and he turned back to a rough and ready approach in Wild Life. Yes, John was a great musician and artist and person. I can appreciate how he was so able to incorporate his own thoughts and truths in his music even if these 'truths' changed over time, as they often did. I admire the man and his struggles but don't know why that makes him a 'true artist' more than others. John did tend to write more personal songs than narrative songs ala Paul but why does that make him more of a 'true artist'? I think Paul was more able and perhaps more confident in his ability with melody rather than lyrics and/or message but being a 'music' artist (whatever that means) doesn't necessarily mean he wasn't a 'true' artist (whatever that means). I would take GREAT issue with the statement that he doesn't have much to say about anything. Are the only valid statements in art those about personal angst, abandonment by parents issues, rebellion against government etc? John wrote many songs about his love for Yoko and Beautiful Boy for Sean - are they any less 'true' art than other songs such as Imagine or Gimme Some Truth? Likewise, are Paul's love songs any less 'true' than John's? I'm not overally fond of Paul's attempts at 'message' or political songs but they do exist (though not to the extent of John's) - are these 'true' art or just mere posturing as opposed to the truth contained in John's songs of the same nature? I would venture to say that Paul has plenty to say - he speaks of love for his wife and family, loss won and love lost, abandonment, separation, reconciliation, caring for others, reaching out to those who need it, belonging, loneliness, etc. Often these thoughts, emotions and 'truths' are wrapped in third person narratives about 'others' and not just himself but that, in no way, makes them 'less' about anything than a first-person introspective. Yes, Paul has a great gift with music and his melody and instrumentation convey his art but they do so with John as well. For me, I find Paul more musically diverse and interesting (and I find John more capable with lyrics MOST of the time) but they BOTH express their emotions, truths, art within both lyrics AND music, not only one to the exclusion of the other. I certainly don't consider Mind Games and Walls & Bridges 'failures' though I don't see them as artistically successful as Imagine or POB. I find many songs on both these albums to be fantastic and worthy of all the praise you want to shower them with. Some songs, naturally, I wouldn't advocate that for but by no means do I judge them failures. Where are these albums being called failures? In comparison to the mammoth albums that came before them (POB, Imagine, ATMP) or just in isolation? And where are these albums you speak of regarding Paul? Are you equating success with a lack of it being 'bad' here because that doesn't necessarily work. You need to also consider change in time - a Paul album such as Electric Arguments might be given huge plaudits and be called successful artistically but won't chart; the market has changed whereas a more mediocre album of his might've charted in the past merely because of its competition or, yes, his name (which, how is that unavoidable or even a problem?). Anyway, I've seen scant evidence of that kind of double standard but would be interested in seeing it, if it's around somewhere. Nicole the double standard is the assertion that John didn't have a great solo career. He released these albums - POB Imagine SINYC Mind Games Walls and Bridges Double Fantasy Milk and Honey* Of those six albums, SINYC can be scratched, each of those albums were hits and had hit singles and two out of the six are considered classics. For a six album career that's pretty good and you have a posthumous classic Nobody Told Me which gets played regularly. As far as John being a truer artist than Paul, not sure how you can argue against it but since you've highlighted practically every sentence of my post let me begin. John revealed his own weaknesses and failings ruthlessly. He spoke publicly about his heroin use and his drunkenness, and about the feelings of envy and bitterness that intermittently overwhelmed him. He also spoke publicly about his dream of peace and love. But it wasn't his dream that made him a hero; it was his struggle to expose and overcome his anger, misery, and pain. John's growing self-consciousness in the late sixties was part of a wider cultural phenomenon in which rock critics and antiwar writers began to think seriously about the relationship between the counterculture and the poitical movements that were going on. When John Lennon released a new record, it wasn't simply consumed by a passive audience; when he announced a new political project, it wasn't simply observed. People argued about his projects. His openness to new ideas, his eagerness to try new things and take risks, his willingness to appear foolish, made him an appealing person, especially in contrast to most superstars, who never strayed from their media images. But John also posed a problem for his fans. Often it was hard to decide whether to be embarrassed by him or proud of him. He won both enthusiasm and ridicule. Writers filled the underground and alternative press and the rock magazines with these arguments. This growing self-consciousness of a new generation also understood John's significance. John was not the only figure to receive this scrutiny, and he knew it. He was constantly measured against two others: Bob Dylan and Mick Jagger. John regularly glanced over his shoulder at their projects. Sometimes he tried to top them, sometimes he challenged one or the other with a radical change in direction. They did the same to him. At a few rare moments the work of all three converged. To understand John you also have to understand the achievements and limitations of Bob Dylan and Mick Jagger. If you look back at his work, political and social questions were central to John's work as a musician and his thinking about himself in every phase of his life. He changed his mind more than once, but he never gave up his commitment to face the questions. So this is not an attack on Paul, as I have said I only see Paul as a music artist, Paul loves and cares about music and that's great for people who like that but I don't see what Paul does as an expression of anything other than his own musical tastes. He was a truer artist in the 60s as a Beatle.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on May 26, 2012 13:09:31 GMT -5
I am reading Howard Sounes' book Fab and I either need to quit reading that book or find a new favorite band!
Paul sounds pretty ruthless, wanting fame at all cost. While happy to bask in the collective goodwill The Beatles generate with millions, Paul also seems just as determined to grind the legacies of John and George into the ground with his non-leather bootheel!
Rory Storm's sister, Iris Caldwell, was an independent, free-thinking woman who broke-up with Paul and never looked back(and she did so when it was clear that fame was coming Paul's way) and that really angered Paul, he couldn't get something that he wanted. When Paul asked Mrs. Caldwell why her daughter wouldn't speak to him, Mrs. Caldwell simply said, "You have no heart, Paul."
Very telling to me as to all aspects of Paul.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on May 26, 2012 16:56:33 GMT -5
Ursamajor -- I loved reading your analysis of John Lennon. Well done and spot on.
|
|
|
Post by nicole21290 on May 26, 2012 18:54:28 GMT -5
I am reading Howard Sounes' book Fab and I either need to quit reading that book or find a new favorite band! Paul sounds pretty ruthless, wanting fame at all cost. While happy to bask in the collective goodwill The Beatles generate with millions, Paul also seems just as determined to grind the legacies of John and George into the ground with his non-leather bootheel! Rory Storm's sister, Iris Caldwell, was an independent, free-thinking woman who broke-up with Paul and never looked back(and she did so when it was clear that fame was coming Paul's way) and that really angered Paul, he couldn't get something that he wanted. When Paul asked Mrs. Caldwell why her daughter wouldn't speak to him, Mrs. Caldwell simply said, "You have no heart, Paul." Very telling to me as to all aspects of Paul. Personally, I'd suggest not reading that book... Seriously, I don't want to read a haigography of Paul but Sounes' attitude and writing really irritated me. I wonder why he bothered writing the biography at all, seeing as he seems to both dislike Paul as a person and isn't really fond of his music at all either. To be honest, the excerpts in the Mail where he practically slammed Linda ('gauche', 'abrasive', 'groupie' etc) really put me off reading the book for quite some time. Yes, the book is better than some biographies of Paul and I'm glad he DID look at Paul's negative points but some aspects of it made me bristle. Paul has spoken numerous times about wanting fame. Does that surprise you? I wouldn't say 'at any cost' but I'd also say The Beatles (not just Paul) really, really, really wanted to be famous. And great musicians. Which they were. And honestly?! PLEASE give me some legitimate examples of Paul being 'determined to grind the legacies of John and George into the ground'. Yes, sometimes he exaggerates his own importance and contributions but he does not ever actually say anything which would indicate dismissal of John or George as people, and particularly as musicians - he always praises John to the heavens and says over and over how lucky he feels that he got to work with him. He wouldn't, for example, state that John's music was 'muzak' or that his 'last gasp was <insert late 60s song here>' or 'I think he was trying to sabotage my songs' for example... (not getting into the versus thing but seriously) Yes, absolutely, there's no getting around the fact that some attitudes Paul had towards women and his girlfriends in particular in the late 50s and into the 60s was quite disgusting and abhorrant and I don't condone that in the least. I find it incredibly unappealing the double standard he had towards Jane's career/life/role, for example. On the other hand, I don't think we can use a single example of how ruthless Paul was towards gaining fame at the cost of a girlfriend and his dismissal of that bad behaviour as something that determines and gives us a shining light 'on all aspects of his character'. His near 30 long year devoted marriage towards Linda gives me a better indication of his committment, ideas about relationships and women than a short relationship he had when in his early 20s, for example, just as the hundreds of quotes he's made about how much he loves and admires John speak more to me about his feelings than one 'Martin Luther Lennon' in a written down private phone call.
|
|
|
Post by nicole21290 on May 26, 2012 19:14:35 GMT -5
Nicole the double standard is the assertion that John didn't have a great solo career. He released these albums - POB Imagine SINYC Mind Games Walls and Bridges Double Fantasy Milk and Honey* Of those six albums, SINYC can be scratched, each of those albums were hits and had hit singles and two out of the six are considered classics. For a six album career that's pretty good and you have a posthumous classic Nobody Told Me which gets played regularly. That's not a double standard though. That's just people saying John didn't have a great solo career. Look, personally, I'd be leaning towards 'good with some great' but that's just me. Same as I wouldn't ever say Paul had a 'great' solo career but just 'good'. The consistency just isn't there. And just because they're hits doesn't mean they're 'great' either. I would say POB and Imagine are classics, yes, and the others (minus SINYC) are mostly good with some great songs. I don't see a double standard anywhere though. My main issue is that I'm not sure why we even need to categorise them into a box of 'true' artist or not. I don't think it's a legitimate category. I don't think John's being an icon, or a great musician, or an interesting person, or a fascinating character and speaker, or a countercounter revolutionary or an inspiring peace activist or anything or those things makes him more of a 'true' artist than Paul. Surely, a 'true' artist is merely an artist (musician, I assume here) who stays true to his own beliefs and truth and expresses them in the lyrics and music of his songs? And I don't disagree with any of that. I'd read a number of great John biographies and have no doubt as to his importance as a political, artistic and social figure in the mid 60s to mid 70s. I know plenty about Jagger and particularly Dylan and agree that these three men were absolute giants of their arena in terms if musical and artistic revolution etc. HOWEVER, not everything about John was fantastic and I certainly don't see how all of these great things make him more 'true' than Paul, even if Paul wasn't such an icon or important figure in these arenas. Hmm, I know it's not an attack. I do think it's unfair though. I think Paul's music IS more than just reflecting his 'musical tastes'. His music is a reflection of the music he loves and enjoys but I think it DOES reflect his political and social views, his ideas about loneliness, love and the roles of women and men, his ideas about peace and reconciliation and friendship etc even if these views aren't as important or highly considered as John's. What do you mean 'TRUER'? I really fail to see what you mean by that. Where is Paul 'false'?
|
|
|
Post by coachbk on May 26, 2012 19:41:51 GMT -5
I am enjoying this discussion and I find that I am almost 100% in agreement with everything that Nicole is saying. I do think Paul is getting a bad rap about not being a "true artist" (see my thread Celebrating Paul in the Paul thread) I'm also in agreement with her assessment of John's solo work. I would further add that combining John's songs from DOUBLE FANTASY and MILK AND HONEY gives him another great album. I had another thought about why I prefer Paul's solo work over John, which I'll save for my next post so this one won't be too long.
|
|
|
Post by coachbk on May 26, 2012 20:13:54 GMT -5
I have always said I consider Paul and John perfectly equal and important during their time with the Beatles. However I prefer Paul's solo work overall. I think that is because Paul continued to have songs throughout his solo career that were kind of equal in style and quality to my favorites of his work as a Beatle, whereas many of my favorite of John's Beatles songs were of in styles he never pursued in his solo career. For example Maybe I'm Amazed I'd rate as good as Let It Be and it is similarly majestic. Here Today compares well with Yesterday. He's had many other love songs (My Love, Little Willow, I'm Carrying, Warm And Beautiful, One Of These Days, So Bad) that compare well with The Long And Winding Road, I Will, And I Love Her, Here There & Everywhere, etc. Calico Skies and Put It There match up well with Blackbird and Mother Nature's Son. Wanderlust is as strong as Penny Lane. Tug Of War can stand with Eleanor Rigby. Then there are the rockers. I'd put Junior's Farm, I've Had Enough, Jet, Rock Show and Eat At Home right up there with Get Back, Birthday, Back To USSR, Drive My Car, etc. Folky pop? I'd rate Dear Boy, Every Night, Mull Of Kintyre and Young Boy close to I've Just Seen A Face, Things We Said Today and You Won't See Me. The musical variety of the Abbey Road medley? How about Back Seat Of My Car, Uncle Albert, Band On The Run, Mrs. Vanderbilt, Little Lamb Dragonfly and Picasso's Last Words? The sunny optimistic pop of Hello Goodbye, Lovely Rita, Good Day Sunshine, We Can Work It Out and Got To Get You Into My Life have been attained with This One, With A Little Luck, Silly Love Songs, Listen To What The Man Said and Daytime Nighttime Suffering. Heck he's even got the When I'm 64, Honey Pie genre covered with Baby's Request and You Gave Me The Answer. Contrast that with John. Yes he has Imagine, Mind Games, Oh My Love, Working Class Hero and similar songs that match up well with stuff like In My Life, Dear Prudence, Nowhere Man and Norwegian Wood and he's got great rockers like Instant Karma, Gimme Some Truth, New York City and Bring On The Lucie that can stand up with Revolution, The Ballad Of John And Yoko, And Your Bird Can Sing and Come Together. But among my favorite of John's Beatles songs are Strawberry Fields Forever, Tomorrow Never Knows, A Day In The Life, Rain and I Am The Walrus. There is simply nothing in John's solo career that is like these. The closest may be something like God or #9 Dream, but they don't quite have the musical adventurous quality of his Beatles songs from that time. So that is how it is for me anyway.
|
|
|
Post by coachbk on May 26, 2012 20:29:31 GMT -5
I'd like to add that George, while getting away from the Indian music that I like, was able to match and exceed his Beatles output in his solo career. Of course his Beatles output was nowhere near what John and Paul had, but solo I rate him fairly close with John. Finally I really love John's last stuff (DOUBLE FANTASY and MILK AND HONEY). That stuff matches his more pop/rock oriented Beatles output quite well. I believe that John was at the start of another great musical period. Would he have matched (or exceeded) his personal peak (for me) of 1965-67? Sadly we will never know.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on May 26, 2012 21:05:27 GMT -5
Contrast that with John. Yes he has Imagine, Mind Games, Oh My Love, Working Class Hero and similar songs that match up well with stuff like In My Life, Dear Prudence, Nowhere Man and Norwegian Wood and he's got great rockers like Instant Karma, Gimme Some Truth, New York City and Bring On The Lucie that can stand up with Revolution, The Ballad Of John And Yoko, And Your Bird Can Sing and Come Together. But among my favorite of John's Beatles songs are Strawberry Fields Forever, Tomorrow Never Knows, A Day In The Life, Rain and I Am The Walrus. There is simply nothing in John's solo career that is like these. Not at all fair. Paul has been recording solo music for 42 years. John was murdered and was only actively doing various solo material for a scant 7 years. We never got a chance to see what John would do for the past three decades. But I'm not sure why anything "has" to sound like The Beatles' I AM THE WALRUS, or anything "Beatley" in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by coachbk on May 26, 2012 21:56:34 GMT -5
Contrast that with John. Yes he has Imagine, Mind Games, Oh My Love, Working Class Hero and similar songs that match up well with stuff like In My Life, Dear Prudence, Nowhere Man and Norwegian Wood and he's got great rockers like Instant Karma, Gimme Some Truth, New York City and Bring On The Lucie that can stand up with Revolution, The Ballad Of John And Yoko, And Your Bird Can Sing and Come Together. But among my favorite of John's Beatles songs are Strawberry Fields Forever, Tomorrow Never Knows, A Day In The Life, Rain and I Am The Walrus. There is simply nothing in John's solo career that is like these. Not at all fair. Paul has been recording solo music for 42 years. John was murdered and was only actively doing various solo material for a scant 7 years. We never got a chance to see what John would do for the past three decades. Agree with you totally about the shortness of John's career. If you note my last post I mentioned how I thought John's DOUBLE FANTASY/MILK AND HONEY songs were excellent and that I believe he was set to make an even bigger comeback and do even better work. Sadly we will never know. Perhaps it isn't fair to include Paul's songs post 1980 in any comparison. I still prefer Paul's solo work, but the margin would be less. I really wish we could have had John's music the last 3 decades (and George's for the past decade as well)
|
|
|
Post by coachbk on May 26, 2012 22:01:05 GMT -5
[quote But I'm not sure why anything "has" to sound like The Beatles' I AM THE WALRUS, or anything "Beatley" in the first place. [/quote]
It doesn't have to. But for me personally at least half of my favorite Beatles songs of John are from his psychedelic era (Strawberry Fields, Lucy, A Day In The Life, Rain, Tomorrow Never Knows) and the absence of those types of songs from his solo career (for me) makes it of a lesser quality than what he did with the Beatles.
For others who prefer the self examination of PLASTIC ONO BAND and/or the politics of SINYC they may actually prefer the solo Lennon to Beatle John. I just don't happen to be one of those people.
|
|
|
Post by nicole21290 on May 26, 2012 23:21:07 GMT -5
I think Paul's music IS more than just reflecting his 'musical tastes'. His music is a reflection of the music he loves and enjoys but I think it DOES reflect his political and social views, his ideas about loneliness, love and the roles of women and men, his ideas about peace and reconciliation and friendship etc even if these views aren't as important or highly considered as John's. And yet when Paul himself is asked how he wrote this song or that song, more often than not he doesn't even know. He often says they're not really about much, that he often gets a tune in his head and starts plunking around on the piano and then tries to make words fit. The Paul Mad Hatters may not want to admit it, but it's a pretty basic fact that John was more personal, more deep, more self-revealing and introspective. At least give the man that.... at least. Absolutely he says that. And a lot of the time I believe him. When asked how he wrote a song he mainly talks about its origin in terms of 'what I was doing when I started writing it' - I was sitting around waiting for Linda - or on what instrument he started using to construct it - 'I was just noodling around on my guitar'. There are many songs in Paul's catalogue that, yes, are about 'nothing', many are just musical doodles with lyrics filled in. However, many of his songs are about 'stuff', even personal 'stuff', and I think are sometimes smoothed over by generalities or by extra thoughts or by making things more abstract. Even if he does plunk around and try and make words fit that doesn't mean those words are any less a reflection of his thoughts and feelings. Sometimes they ARE complete nonsense but many times they aren't. And I've never said that. I think that John certainly was more introspective and willing to open himself up psychologically within his own music and also in interviews. I wouldn't say he was more deep, however. I guess it depends again on how you define depth. A large number of people seem to think depth is synonymous with pain, frustration, inner angst and delving into the artist's tortured psyche. I don't necessarily think that's all there is to it. Is it really necessary to call 'us' 'Mad Hatters', anyway? I find it a tad demeaning, if I'm honest. I think that Paul is/was definitely more prone to hiding aspects of his character and not as willing to show of himself within music. He has spoken about not understanding for many years that people actually didn't mind seeing a person's 'warts' (or faults); that he thought it was necessary to hide those away. He's spoken about music being a way to work through pain and grief and hard times. I'm more than happy to 'give John that' but it's really not a competition to me. I'm really not trying to do John down at all - I just think that Paul can't simply be dismissed as having little depth or nearly always writing meaningless songs.
|
|
|
Post by coachbk on May 26, 2012 23:31:46 GMT -5
[quote
I'm more than happy to 'give John that' but it's really not a competition to me. I'm really not trying to do John down at all - I just think that Paul can't simply be dismissed as having little depth or nearly always writing meaningless songs. [/quote]
You are very eloquent at stating exactly the points I would like to be able to make myself!
|
|
|
Post by nicole21290 on May 26, 2012 23:41:14 GMT -5
So -- a Paul McCartney book should be only written by sycophants who worship the very ground Paul walks on and who never want to ever show him in a negative light? Maybe we can have the ultimate book one day, co-authored by RTP and Nicole! ;D Ha, no, of course not! As I stated I DO NOT want to read a book which praises Paul ridiculously without examining his faults. I hate books like that. I do, however, like authors to at least appear to enjoy someone's music whom they're studying and examining, that's all. It makes it a better read, for me at least. I don't want them to lose their objectivity, sure. You're really running to the opposite end of the spectrum here, to be honest. A middle ground would be a nice - for me, I quite enjoyed Doggett's examination of Paul, and the other Beatles, too. I WANT a book to talk about his faults - bossiness, selfishness, arrogance, misogyny, coldness, passive-aggression etc but I want it to talk about the positive aspects of his character too. Ha, I suspect that might not be a good idea!!! We'd have some of you lot screaming and running for the hills, apparently. Okay, fiiiiiine. I certainly think 'technically' they were better than average so is that acceptable? I certainly think SOME of Paul's basswork. Ringo's drumming, George's guitar work (esp. with the slide in late 60s on), and some of John's rhythm guitar work was GREAT, but more in terms of innovation or adaptation rather than technical skill. Is that okay? I'm quite aware of that fact! I agree - John didn't live long enough to make peace with Paul or Paul with John and I hate that. Where else can I hold him to? The possibility of the future? I can't say 'well, maybe John would have spent the next two decades praising Paul and Paul John and it would have been all rainbows and bunnies'. I can only compare based on what I read and we know of John's general character and patterns. As I said I wasn't trying to compare there so that Paul comes out on top. I'm simply trying to point out that people are saying Paul tried to totally stomp J (and G's) reputations into the ground but nowhere does Paul insult them musically in public, for example, whereas the boys did attack Paul musically in public. That's all. I'm very glad they felt able to be honest about how they felt about Paul, too, I find it interesting and enlightening. However, I'm not sure how much comfort that was to Paul. I recall Paul actually speaking about reading over an interview of John's which insulted him and he ended up basically concluding that 'yes, he was a shit'. Yes, John sang 'muzak' but the 'last gasp' comment for example and 'sabotage' ones were from interviews, the former from one weeks before John died. It's interesting, actually, to see Paul's response when it was brought up on breakfast TV when he and Lin were being interviewed. I know it was honestly how John felt at the time but that probably didn't exactly make Paul feel better about his musical talents being insulted by a former bandmate/best friend for everyone to read. Yes, it was a response to Too Many People (and other songs, so John claimed, even if those songs weren't aimed at him - ahem Dear Boy) which DID make reference to Paul's own honest feelings about what him and Yoko were doing. It did not, though, insult John's musical ability ('muzak to my ears', 'the only thing you did was yesterday') or his relationship with his wife ('jump when your momma tell you anything') . Paul gained his sense of worth from these two things - musical ability and relationship with partner/significant other (first with John, then with Linda I would say) and those were publicly attacked in song. I'm sorry but I can admire John's honesty but I REALLY do wish he'd kept those words to say to Paul in private if he really felt that way. Same as I wish Paul hadn't said those words to John in song, even if they were couched so that not everyone knew they were about John straight away and they could be applied more generally.
|
|
|
Post by nicole21290 on May 26, 2012 23:44:45 GMT -5
You are very eloquent at stating exactly the points I would like to be able to make myself! Excuse me for a minute whilst I cry in pleasure at the fact that someone agrees with me!!! Seriously, thank you - REALLY appreciate that. I realise that I can piss people off with my somewhat stringent views and tendency towards length and verbosity in posts but I do try and think things through. And I really hope I don't offend anyone, by the way, and apologies if I do - you're all very, very lovely and I enjoy actually getting to talk to people about my favourite band for once. Apparently, my friends don't find it very enjoyable to discuss the merits of the Anthology version of I Know (I Know) over the album version. Strange that.
|
|
|
Post by zemargla on May 27, 2012 0:57:48 GMT -5
I think Paul's music IS more than just reflecting his 'musical tastes'. His music is a reflection of the music he loves and enjoys but I think it DOES reflect his political and social views, his ideas about loneliness, love and the roles of women and men, his ideas about peace and reconciliation and friendship etc even if these views aren't as important or highly considered as John's. And yet when Paul himself is asked how he wrote this song or that song, more often than not he doesn't even know. He often says they're not really about much, that he often gets a tune in his head and starts plunking around on the piano and then tries to make words fit. The Paul Mad Hatters may not want to admit it, but it's a pretty basic fact that John was more personal, more deep, more self-revealing and introspective. At least give the man that.... at least. A couple of years ago a friend of Paul's was asked 'Why does Paul never tell? This friend said "It's all in his songs."
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on May 27, 2012 1:02:11 GMT -5
Nicole the double standard is the assertion that John didn't have a great solo career. He released these albums - POB Imagine SINYC Mind Games Walls and Bridges Double Fantasy Milk and Honey* Of those six albums, SINYC can be scratched, each of those albums were hits and had hit singles and two out of the six are considered classics. For a six album career that's pretty good and you have a posthumous classic Nobody Told Me which gets played regularly. That's not a double standard though. That's just people saying John didn't have a great solo career. Look, personally, I'd be leaning towards 'good with some great' but that's just me. Same as I wouldn't ever say Paul had a 'great' solo career but just 'good'. The consistency just isn't there. And just because they're hits doesn't mean they're 'great' either. I would say POB and Imagine are classics, yes, and the others (minus SINYC) are mostly good with some great songs. I don't see a double standard anywhere though. My main issue is that I'm not sure why we even need to categorise them into a box of 'true' artist or not. I don't think it's a legitimate category. I don't think John's being an icon, or a great musician, or an interesting person, or a fascinating character and speaker, or a countercounter revolutionary or an inspiring peace activist or anything or those things makes him more of a 'true' artist than Paul. Surely, a 'true' artist is merely an artist (musician, I assume here) who stays true to his own beliefs and truth and expresses them in the lyrics and music of his songs? And I don't disagree with any of that. I'd read a number of great John biographies and have no doubt as to his importance as a political, artistic and social figure in the mid 60s to mid 70s. I know plenty about Jagger and particularly Dylan and agree that these three men were absolute giants of their arena in terms if musical and artistic revolution etc. HOWEVER, not everything about John was fantastic and I certainly don't see how all of these great things make him more 'true' than Paul, even if Paul wasn't such an icon or important figure in these arenas. Hmm, I know it's not an attack. I do think it's unfair though. I think Paul's music IS more than just reflecting his 'musical tastes'. His music is a reflection of the music he loves and enjoys but I think it DOES reflect his political and social views, his ideas about loneliness, love and the roles of women and men, his ideas about peace and reconciliation and friendship etc even if these views aren't as important or highly considered as John's. What do you mean 'TRUER'? I really fail to see what you mean by that. Where is Paul 'false'? Hey Nicole, the best example I can give is this, take the album London Town, I love it, it's one of my favourite Paul albums, in my Top 10 Paul albums but when I break that album down, it's nice songs which would have been great ditties but Paul has slabbed over production on it, which btw I like but the songs themselves don't express anything about Paul's view on anything, they're just Paul being creative with how to make the songs sound. The artists themselves that make all the difference. The art is just a bi-product that draws attention to the person who created it. But the person has to draw attention to his or herself in other ways too, and ‘be’ a great artist, to bring more attention to their art. I suppose the art and artist mutually feed on each other. That's what John did and that's what people like Picasso, Madonna, Versace, Warhol and Leibovitz did.
|
|
|
Post by zemargla on May 27, 2012 1:08:31 GMT -5
[quote I'm more than happy to 'give John that' but it's really not a competition to me. I'm really not trying to do John down at all - I just think that Paul can't simply be dismissed as having little depth or nearly always writing meaningless songs. You are very eloquent at stating exactly the points I would like to be able to make myself![/quote] I agree! Nicole, I enjoy your posts as well!
|
|
|
Post by zemargla on May 27, 2012 1:26:15 GMT -5
ursamajor, Picasso did masterpieces, but he did doodles as well, many, many. And they're interesting too.
My favourite song of London Town is "Don't Let It Bring You Down". The song is one example of the optimism und positivism I like so much in Paul's work.
|
|
|
Post by nicole21290 on May 27, 2012 1:33:34 GMT -5
Hey Nicole, the best example I can give is this, take the album London Town, I love it, it's one of my favourite Paul albums, in my Top 10 Paul albums but when I break that album down, it's nice songs which would have been great ditties but Paul has slabbed over production on it, which btw I like but the songs themselves don't express anything about Paul's view on anything, they're just Paul being creative with how to make the songs sound. The artists themselves that make all the difference. The art is just a bi-product that draws attention to the person who created it. But the person has to draw attention to his or herself in other ways too, and ‘be’ a great artist, to bring more attention to their art. I suppose the art and artist mutually feed on each other. That's what John did and that's what people like Picasso, Madonna, Versace, Warhol and Leibovitz did. Hmm, interesting. I wouldn't have thought over-production would be an issue folks had with that album, to be honest. Some of the songs being weak, however... Hmm, I think I differ there. Yes, Paul likes to be creative with sound but I think London Town is actually more homogenous in sound than many of his LPs were. Yes, not all the songs are 'meaningful' and I certainly don't claim that Morse Moose and the Grey Goose gives as a look into Paul's soul. However, here are a few songs that I think do express more than simply 'being creative with sound'. Cafe on the Left Bank - I'm fairly sure (though not 100% certain) that links from the lyrics can quite easily be drawn to John and Paul's little journey to Paris for John's 21st and their accounts of that time. The connections may be a coincidence but I have a feeling not. So, autobiographical in parts, methinks. Cafe on the left bank, ordinary wine Touching all the girls with your eyes Tiny crowd of Frenchmen round a TV shop Watching Charles de Gaulle make a speech Dancing after midnight, sprawling to the car Continental breakfast in the bar English-speaking people drinking German beer Talking far too loud for their ears With A Little Luck - one of Paul's best qualities, I think, is his optimism and I think this exemplifies this well. He speaks of the potential for more by two persons, he talks about overcoming adversity with the help of someone loved. There is no end to what we can do together. There is no end, there is no end. The willow turns his back on inclement weather; We can do it, just me and you. Don't Let It Bring You Down - fits in quite well with a number of Paul's songs which deal with comforting those that need it, understanding and sympathising with tough times and trying to get through them (Somebody Who Cares, Little Willow). Not to the same depth as those but the thought is consistent and there. Though some things in life are hard to bear Don't let it bring you down Up and down your carousel will go Don't let it bring you down _ Okay, I see more where you're coming from. Sorry for going over the top - I don't have an issue with differentiating John and Paul in terms of their kind of artistry and it's meaning and effect. I just have an issue with one being labelled 'real' and another not, I think, and the implication of that upon the character and depth of the person who created the art. Yes, I see the distinction which is why I think John, as a solo artist, more than Paul is viewed as an 'icon'. I think his views were often more polarising and attention-getting and radical and he drew attention to himself as a person, as an artist, expressing himself as such. Paul has always seen himself more in the older mode, I think, that of a craftsman (not that there's anything wrong with that either). I don't think that craftsman-like approach to making music means he was unable or didn't use a more introspective, self-reflective approach at times but the former was what he was more able and comfortable expressing himself with and many of his more 'deep' lyrics/thoughts are embedded WITHIN these works rather than with John, where those 'deep' lyrics/thoughts WERE the artistic works, or songs. John, unlike Paul, seemed to gain from exploring himself in a more public manner and I really admire that.
|
|
|
Post by nicole21290 on May 27, 2012 1:35:56 GMT -5
You are very eloquent at stating exactly the points I would like to be able to make myself! I agree! Nicole, I enjoy your posts as well! Oh, well now I'm just going to have to throw myself a party! Thanks, though. REALLY appreciate that. My little sister doesn't think my time spent arguing about The Beatles on online forums is justified for some reason so this is some small comfort!
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on May 27, 2012 2:50:02 GMT -5
Hey Nicole, the best example I can give is this, take the album London Town, I love it, it's one of my favourite Paul albums, in my Top 10 Paul albums but when I break that album down, it's nice songs which would have been great ditties but Paul has slabbed over production on it, which btw I like but the songs themselves don't express anything about Paul's view on anything, they're just Paul being creative with how to make the songs sound. The artists themselves that make all the difference. The art is just a bi-product that draws attention to the person who created it. But the person has to draw attention to his or herself in other ways too, and ‘be’ a great artist, to bring more attention to their art. I suppose the art and artist mutually feed on each other. That's what John did and that's what people like Picasso, Madonna, Versace, Warhol and Leibovitz did. Hmm, interesting. I wouldn't have thought over-production would be an issue folks had with that album, to be honest. Some of the songs being weak, however... Hmm, I think I differ there. Yes, Paul likes to be creative with sound but I think London Town is actually more homogenous in sound than many of his LPs were. Yes, not all the songs are 'meaningful' and I certainly don't claim that Morse Moose and the Grey Goose gives as a look into Paul's soul. However, here are a few songs that I think do express more than simply 'being creative with sound'. Cafe on the Left Bank - I'm fairly sure (though not 100% certain) that links from the lyrics can quite easily be drawn to John and Paul's little journey to Paris for John's 21st and their accounts of that time. The connections may be a coincidence but I have a feeling not. So, autobiographical in parts, methinks. Cafe on the left bank, ordinary wine Touching all the girls with your eyes Tiny crowd of Frenchmen round a TV shop Watching Charles de Gaulle make a speech Dancing after midnight, sprawling to the car Continental breakfast in the bar English-speaking people drinking German beer Talking far too loud for their ears With A Little Luck - one of Paul's best qualities, I think, is his optimism and I think this exemplifies this well. He speaks of the potential for more by two persons, he talks about overcoming adversity with the help of someone loved. There is no end to what we can do together. There is no end, there is no end. The willow turns his back on inclement weather; We can do it, just me and you. Don't Let It Bring You Down - fits in quite well with a number of Paul's songs which deal with comforting those that need it, understanding and sympathising with tough times and trying to get through them (Somebody Who Cares, Little Willow). Not to the same depth as those but the thought is consistent and there. Though some things in life are hard to bear Don't let it bring you down Up and down your carousel will go Don't let it bring you down _ Okay, I see more where you're coming from. Sorry for going over the top - I don't have an issue with differentiating John and Paul in terms of their kind of artistry and it's meaning and effect. I just have an issue with one being labelled 'real' and another not, I think, and the implication of that upon the character and depth of the person who created the art. Yes, I see the distinction which is why I think John, as a solo artist, more than Paul is viewed as an 'icon'. I think his views were often more polarising and attention-getting and radical and he drew attention to himself as a person, as an artist, expressing himself as such. Paul has always seen himself more in the older mode, I think, that of a craftsman (not that there's anything wrong with that either). I don't think that craftsman-like approach to making music means he was unable or didn't use a more introspective, self-reflective approach at times but the former was what he was more able and comfortable expressing himself with and many of his more 'deep' lyrics/thoughts are embedded WITHIN these works rather than with John, where those 'deep' lyrics/thoughts WERE the artistic works, or songs. John, unlike Paul, seemed to gain from exploring himself in a more public manner and I really admire that. No worries, not trying to say Paul is not great or not as good as John, nothing to do with that at all. I don't know much about Mozart other than he was a musical genius and that's the type of artist I think of Paul as , all about the music, which he has shown especially in the Beatles years as he expiremented with all styles of music like Eleanor Rigby. Paul's muse is the music.
|
|