Paul McCartney

Subject: RE: Paul McCartney
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 15 Dec 10 - 06:08 AM

their desperate attempts to stay up with the times

They pretty much created the times in the mid 60s...

And it's 'Macca' not 'Maccer'

Subject: RE: Paul McCartney
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 15 Dec 10 - 06:28 AM

I disagree that the Beatles created the times. They flogged the zeitgeist - black music, performance art, situationist film, classical-experimental music to a pop audience who were unfamiliar with them. They were original in a marketing sense and wrote some catchy tunes to hang them on.

Subject: RE: Paul McCartney
From: Wesley S
Date: 15 Dec 10 - 07:41 AM

They flogged the zeitgeist - black music, performance art, situationist film, classical-experimental music to a pop audience who were unfamiliar with them.

What artist hasn't? EVERYONE builds on the past. Can you name a totally original artist that hasn't been influenced by someone before them? No - of course not.

Subject: RE: Paul McCartney
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 15 Dec 10 - 08:05 AM

It's not a question of being influenced, it's a regurgitation of rhythm and blues, fashion, mysticism, counter culture for a popular audience. The most original thing the Beatles did was to hire George Martin.

Subject: RE: Paul McCartney
From: GUEST,Colin Holt
Date: 15 Dec 10 - 08:41 AM

What a Christmas cracker this thread is turning in to…
I'm a bit new to mudcat so forgive me…
So many interesting points….
Whether it was partly due to hype/ media/ luck whatever !! The Beatles wrote ( and McCartney was one driving force behind it) the soundtrack to many people's lives. Thus the very mention of any criticism in the ranks ruffles many feathers.
They were kids growing up and learning how to play and write music, all in the media headlights for many years. Some love the music, some don't.( thats the beauty of music)
They were influenced by what was around them and what went before them, and in turn they influenced what was around them and what came after them….. Pretty simple really. Its what we as humans do.
I don't hold with the idea that they "regurgitated", (Glueman), as this implies they simply copied without adding to in any way. They revolutionised the way music was recorded ( thanks partly to George Martin/ LSD and their collective creativity).eg. Strawberry Fields.
They may not have been the best musicians of their time…(though I wonder about the musical credentials of some making this statement). Making great music in a band is not all about individual virtuoso skill. Anyone who has worked any length of time in a band will fully understand this. It is equally, if not much more about compromise, and utilising strengths.
George Harrison (arguably) wrote some brilliant songs which later appeared on his solo work ( collated over several Beatle years, because there was not enough room on the Beatles albums for him).
Getting back to the subject of the thread…McCartney is still popular, (himself and his back catalogue). And as a bass player he (arguably) was and remains ultra melodic, never over plays, and is always sensitive to the music he is playing to ( the mark of a great player ).. (arguably).

Subject: RE: Paul McCartney
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 15 Dec 10 - 08:59 AM

I'm not saying the Beatles weren't a decent pop group, I'm questioning the pedestal they've been put on. In a reasonably sized collection I don't own a single Beatles record nor have any desire to acquire one and don't feel I'm missing out. Not one of their records move me in any of the ways music can.

The Beatles came at the peak of 45 single sales, a booming youth market and transistor radios. They couldn't have happened at any other time before or since. Among mainstream guitar boy bands The Beach Boys are as interesting and individually the band members (Ringo aside) have done material equal to their Beatles stuff, without it having quite the same effect. Anyway this thread is about Paul McCartney and whether he has anything to contribute to music today.

Subject: RE: Paul McCartney
From: cooperman
Date: 15 Dec 10 - 09:28 AM

I think the Beatles stuff was pretty original compared with what was around at the time. Obviously it had it's foundations. I grew up with it (and all the other sixties stuff). I love it and I think it's still valid even now. Maybe you had to be there, although I had friends at the time who didn't like them.
Ok, they are only pop songs but with the brilliant George Martin they gained sophistication and developed their own sound. They worked hard in the recording studio compared with many bands of that era.
In my book Paul has no need to contribute anything to music today. His past contribution is massive.

Subject: RE: Paul McCartney
From: Nobodys bard
Date: 15 Dec 10 - 10:21 AM

I was never a fan particularly & still only rarely listen to them (usually if someone else puts them on) - however I have to admit they've written some great songs I just tend to prefer them done by other people. I fell in love with Ray Charles version of Eleanor Rigby & was slightly shocked to learn that it was written by Paul. Likewise I loved Ike & Tina Turner's version of Come Together. I know there's been many others too but they are the two that immeadiately spring to mind. In fact, it happened so often that in the end - I had to admit that they have written some pretty wonderful songs. I agree with glueman though, if it hadn't been the Beatles it would be someone else we'd be discussing. Society needs it's heroes & The Beatles just happen to fulfill that role, Right place at the right time & all that (as opposed to Dr John's .. Right Place, Wrong Time!)

As to whether Paul McCartney has anything to contribute today ..I agree with cooperman ...at almost 70, I think he's probably made his "considerable" contribution already! I suspect that songs like "Yesterday" will likely enter the "folk tradition" & still be being sung for many years to come. (long after we're all dust). I'd say that's quite a "contribution"!

Subject: RE: Paul McCartney
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 15 Dec 10 - 10:40 AM

Nick Cave's Let It Be is pretty good too, not as depressing as I thought it would be.

Subject: RE: Paul McCartney
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 15 Dec 10 - 04:28 PM

A good way of judging an artists' worth is to ask the question, "What did their contemporary fellow artists think about them?"
Well, in The Beatles case, with almost unaminous, hero worshipping, approval - amongst white musicians
And, this approval stretched into the folk world. Many former folkies got rid of their acoustic instruments and plugged in upon hearing The Beatles.
The body of work produced by The Beatles is incredible. And, they were so inventive - and they could sing. How they could sing!
However, you really had to be there to feel the impact The Beatles made, and if you weren't there, then it would take a lot of time and detailed, academic study to gain a proper insight to their contribution to the development of popular music.

Subject: RE: Paul McCartney
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Dec 10 - 07:55 PM

Still guaranteed to make you smile...

I'm sorry for people who don't get the Beatles in the same way I'm sorry for people who don't get folk music.

Subject: RE: Paul McCartney
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Dec 10 - 08:01 PM

McCartney was born the 16th of June, 1942. He's only 68.

Subject: RE: Paul McCartney
From: bobad
Date: 15 Dec 10 - 08:02 PM

June 18 actually.

Subject: RE: Paul McCartney
From: J-boy
Date: 15 Dec 10 - 11:18 PM

Correct.He's"only"68.My mistake.

Subject: RE: Paul McCartney
From: closet-folkie
Date: 21 Dec 10 - 11:22 AM

"Silly Love Songs, sums his music up perfectly"

Yeah, too right. Penny Lane, Helter Skelter, Back In The USSR, Lady Madonna, Get Back, Jet. So much fluff...

Subject: RE: Paul McCartney
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Dec 10 - 04:50 AM

A funny take on his terrible Christmas song here:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/1218/1224285829600.html