|
12 Dec 10 - 01:08 AM (#3051440) Subject: Paul Mcartney From: J-boy I just watched the cute Beatle totally kick ass on Saturday Night Live. Pretty damn good for a seventy year old geezer. |
|
12 Dec 10 - 01:15 AM (#3051445) Subject: RE: Paul Mcartney From: J-boy McCartney. But you know who I mean. |
|
12 Dec 10 - 01:20 AM (#3051447) Subject: RE: Paul Mcartney From: Amos It was easy to figure out, yeah; he doesn't look a day over 65... A |
|
12 Dec 10 - 01:39 AM (#3051452) Subject: RE: Paul Mcartney From: J-boy I hear his grandfather is very clean. |
|
12 Dec 10 - 04:47 AM (#3051591) Subject: RE: Paul Mcartney From: alanabit I'd l ike to know more. Is there a clip to watch? What did he play? Did he say anything interesting? |
|
12 Dec 10 - 09:45 AM (#3051727) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: Jeri For as long as it lasts: Paul McCarnety--"Get Back" on SNL. |
|
12 Dec 10 - 09:50 AM (#3051728) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: Jeri That's from the end credits, so there are names scrolling over the band after a few seconds. |
|
12 Dec 10 - 09:52 AM (#3051729) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: gnu 70... gosh. Good tune. Thanks Jeri. |
|
12 Dec 10 - 09:54 AM (#3051730) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: Stu The man's a genius. |
|
12 Dec 10 - 10:57 AM (#3051775) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: Desert Dancer Full episode available until Dec. 30. ~ Becky in Tucson |
|
12 Dec 10 - 11:29 AM (#3051798) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: Doug Chadwick not quite 70 - 18 months to go yet. DC |
|
12 Dec 10 - 12:53 PM (#3051842) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: GUEST,Doug Saum I saw his show in San Francisco this summer. A+ Lots of smiles as the crowd left the stadium. Sat next to a Russian family of three. They could not contain themselves during "Back in the USSR." First saw him as a Beatle in '66. He was on the Jimmy Fallon Show the two nights before SNL; performed a full version of "Scrambled Eggs" and "Here Today." dls |
|
12 Dec 10 - 01:21 PM (#3051863) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: Desert Dancer If you don't want the whole show: Weekend Update with Paul McCartney Band on the Run |
|
12 Dec 10 - 01:58 PM (#3051895) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: McGrath of Harlow When it comes to folk music, fortunately, if you aren't better at 70 than you were at twenty you probably weren't that good at twenty. Did he sing "When I was sixty-four?" |
|
12 Dec 10 - 04:01 PM (#3051977) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: GUEST,zydaco But what if the rest of wings wanted to have thier wives girlfriends in the band?? |
|
13 Dec 10 - 12:35 AM (#3052210) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: J-boy I think it would be cool if all the ex-wives and girlfriends of the Beatles started their own band. Of course, it might be the size of an orchestra. I'd nominate Pete Best as conductor. |
|
13 Dec 10 - 12:41 AM (#3052216) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: mousethief Pete Best is an ex-wife or girlfriend of a Beatle? |
|
13 Dec 10 - 12:55 AM (#3052230) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: J-boy No. Do you think I meant Brian Epstein? |
|
13 Dec 10 - 02:19 AM (#3052252) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: GUEST,jeff Loved the Beatles as a boy, but when I started to learn guitar years later my tastes had changed. Was drawn toward the rich heritage of country, bluegrass, folk, blues, etc. About ten years later I was with a group who got hired to play a private function w/a stipulation we do several Beatles songs. An incredibly humbling experience as I started to learn the guitar parts and vocals. My favorite from that experience was 'I'm Looking Through You'. The man's a 'Universal Treasure'. Grace and dignity beyond measure. Phenomenal sense of humor and a tough, tough guy when he has to be. Altogether admirable. |
|
13 Dec 10 - 05:46 AM (#3052315) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: GUEST I saw Macca on a recent X Factor show in which he played well but looked seriously embarrassed. (God knows how he agreed to that gig) This guy had done more musically by the time he was 25, than most people could dream of doing in a life time. He's dealt with the fame and the glamour. He's written some timeless corkers, some real anthems for a generation, a few stocking fillers, …as well as a few best forgotten. But true to his working class upbringing, he has always carried on working. Whether you like his music or not, ( and there will be very few who don't like one of his songs or more… you may well hear one or two in a folk club near you !!!) he remains an icon, and a world apart from this current splurge of wall to wall reality TV junk, one minute of fame agony, and Simon Cowellesque driven drivel. |
|
13 Dec 10 - 06:19 AM (#3052328) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: GUEST,Patsy And doesn't he know he is an icon? Yes he has done some good tunes but he irritates me no-end. I would not go to see him if I was paid or if it was for free. When Linda passed away I felt so sorry for him but now I don't like the nearly 70 year old he is turning out to be. |
|
13 Dec 10 - 06:41 AM (#3052342) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: Dave Hanson Am I the only person here who can't stand him ? Dave H |
|
13 Dec 10 - 07:26 AM (#3052358) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: Les in Chorlton Probably not and I am surprised the ususal Mudcat misery guts have laid of for so long. Come on wingers where have you been. The fact that he wrote loads of good tunes doesn't usually deter people on here from finding something to go on about It's simple really you listen and you either like his songs or you don't. It really doesn't matter either way. L in C# |
|
13 Dec 10 - 07:37 AM (#3052364) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: Wesley S I'm waiting for his detractors to write a better song than Paul is capible of - then I'll give their opinions some weight. |
|
13 Dec 10 - 09:12 AM (#3052423) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: GUEST,Patsy He is becoming so predictable whenever he comes on the screen I know we are going to get our 'Hey Jude' moment without fail. He is arrogant conceited not the person he was when Linda was here and then he tries to comes out with a really hip statement as if he was still 25 for goodness sake get a grip Paul. |
|
13 Dec 10 - 09:23 AM (#3052429) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: Les in Chorlton I don't think it helps this discussion when you subtly understate your case Patsy - say what you really feel about Paul it will be better fro us all and probably for Paul as well L in C# |
|
13 Dec 10 - 09:27 AM (#3052434) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: GUEST " not the person he was when Linda was here".... ??? ....She died in 1998.!!!!! He isn't the writer he was when John was here either but hey ho ... there is no grip to lose |
|
13 Dec 10 - 09:52 AM (#3052446) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: Wesley S And I'm sure that Patsy is the same person she was back in 1998. And happy about it too........ |
|
13 Dec 10 - 11:25 AM (#3052498) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: Lonesome EJ Paul has an ego? What a shock! You'd think that after nearly 50 years of writing and performing great popular music, of being acclaimed all over the world as a genius and cultural icon, he'd be humble and retiring. What I see him doing onstage is standing up and playing that left-handed bass and hitting the notes as best he can, and putting all the energy he can into it. More power to him. And I hope he's still offending the naysayers in another 10 years when he's pushing 80 and singing Back in the USSR. |
|
13 Dec 10 - 12:11 PM (#3052535) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: closet-folkie When "Chaos & Creation in The Backyard" came out (2005?), he was considered by many to be over 30 years past his peak. I listen to that record in awe. Paul on drums? Paul on that old Epiphone Casino? Paul singing? It all inspires the hell out of me. Don't even get me started on his bass playing... |
|
13 Dec 10 - 01:09 PM (#3052585) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: Wesley S I wonder how many of those Hofner basses he's gone through over the years? I heard at one point that they weren't that solidly made. I've had no experience with one however. |
|
13 Dec 10 - 01:23 PM (#3052596) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: GUEST,Doc John No Dave and Patsy, but we're outnumbeed. Er...this is the Mudcat - you know, for lovers of the music of Doc Watson, Earl Scruggs, Nic Jones etc - isn't it? |
|
13 Dec 10 - 01:31 PM (#3052605) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: Lonesome EJ Don't get your knickers in a bundle, Doc. Far as I know you can love both Earl Scruggs and Paul McCartney. Didn't Scruggs cover I've Just Seen a Face? So apparently Earl's a McCartney fan too. |
|
14 Dec 10 - 06:43 AM (#3053144) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: GUEST,Patsy Because I critise Paul McCartney it does not mean that I hate him. I had always liked (and have got) the music of each and every one of them even a soft spot for Ringo, but it seems to me sometimes that he wasn't as working class as he made out to be, John too to a certain extent. They certainly would have not have started out on the instruments they had in the early days especially in 50/60's working class Liverpool unless they had a bob or two. Both attended the same art school with Mick Jagger, Keith Richard etc. so all pretty affluent compared to a lot of working class. Ringo was the closest to being genuinely working class. Of course I want him to go on for a long long time yet as I would Eric Clapton, Stevie Winwood, even the peacock Jagger. Perhaps his agreeing to appear on the tacky X Factor might have been to get closer to younger people starting out but his influence or support might be better at an event where young diverse talents are trying to be successful in their own right without the involvement of Simon Cowell (don't get me started on that one). |
|
14 Dec 10 - 07:00 AM (#3053154) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: Will Fly Patsy, my understanding is that Paul M grew up in a pretty working-class household. Mother died when he was young and money wasn't too plentiful. John was actually brought up in a more middle-class style - if we must categorise it all in classes. As for owning instruments, PM had a blonde Epiphone Texan in his early days. I bought a 1964 sunburst Texan in 1966. It was £90 s/h from a music store in Leeds (in the arcade, but can't remember its name). How did I buy it? £5 a month HP for 20 months, or something like that. If you wanted an instrument badly enough, you did what you had to do to buy one. My monthly wage in 1966 was around £800 a year. |
|
14 Dec 10 - 07:40 AM (#3053171) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: GUEST,Colin Holt My understanding is that Paul was indeed from a working class background. When he started playing bass with the Beatles, he bought a Hofner Bass guitar because they were rather modestly priced instruments .... (which were renowned for not keeping tune..) at the time Will Could the shop you refer to be "Kitchens"... |
|
14 Dec 10 - 07:41 AM (#3053175) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: Wesley S "They certainly would have not have started out on the instruments they had in the early days especially in 50/60's working class Liverpool unless they had a bob or two." My understanding is - and I'll have to do some research to confirm this - is that the types of instruments they played at first were rather inexpensive at the time. Rickenbackers, Hofners and Epiphones were not the Fenders and Gibsons they played later. The reason those instruments became sought after later on is because the Hofners and Ricks were identified with the Beatles. |
|
14 Dec 10 - 07:46 AM (#3053176) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: Wesley S Y'know - One thing I've always wondered about the Mudcat. Why does someone open a thread about an artist they know they don't care for and spend time trashing them? Too much time on their hands? The world has too many positive vibes floating around to suit them? Jealous because they can't write a melody as good as the artist that's being trashed? Or is it just a need to get attention? It's pretty sad really. |
|
14 Dec 10 - 08:37 AM (#3053210) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: Les in Chorlton Good call Wes, let's all leave and go somewhere more fun? The Beech tomorrow, songs mostly but not exclusively Traditional L in C# |
|
14 Dec 10 - 08:44 AM (#3053220) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: Dave Hanson Silly Love Songs, sums his music up perfectly. Dave H |
|
14 Dec 10 - 08:44 AM (#3053221) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: Will Fly GUEST, Colin Holt: Will Could the shop you refer to be "Kitchens"... Kitchens! That was it! Thanks for bringing it back to me. The shop had such a great reputation at the time (early-mid '60s) that it was worth the rail trip across the Pennines from Lancaster to browse it. The other northern shop that had a big reputation at that period was Mamelock's in Manchester. |
|
14 Dec 10 - 10:18 AM (#3053277) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: GUEST "but it seems to me sometimes that he wasn't as working class as he made out to be, John too to a certain extent. They certainly would have not have started out on the instruments they had in the early days especially in 50/60's working class Liverpool unless they had a bob or two. Both attended the same art school with Mick Jagger, Keith Richard etc. so all pretty affluent compared to a lot of working class. Ringo was the closest to being genuinely working class." John Lennon - yes, fairly middle class background. Paul McCartney, not so much. They bought their instruments in instalments, like many people do today. Paul's dad disapproved - any 'debt' was seen as a bad, even a shameful thing to many in those days. Paul chose his Hofner partly due to the fact it wasn't very expensive, but also that it was symetrical, so when he played it upside down it wouldn't look quite so daft. They certainly didn't attend 'the same art school as Keith Richards and Mick Jagger'. Richards was at art school in Sidcup, while the Beatles were in Liverpool. And Jagger went to the London School of Economics. He was a bit middle class - although the son of a PE teacher isn't exactly a 'silver spoon' upbringing. Keith Richards dad worked in a light bulb factory. Art schools in the 60s in the UK would take people with no qualifications, if their headmasters wrote them a reference that they showed promise artistically. This didn't mean you were necessarily 'middle class'. However, bringing together so many creative types, many of whom formed bands, certainly seems to have had a major effect on how popular culture developed in the UK. |
|
14 Dec 10 - 11:19 AM (#3053340) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: Trevor Thomas Above post was me - don't know why it's come up as GUEST, I was logged in and everything. |
|
14 Dec 10 - 11:39 AM (#3053353) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: Les in Chorlton I saw them in Ellesmere Port Civic hall October 1962. I thought they'd never come to much L in C# |
|
14 Dec 10 - 12:53 PM (#3053414) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: PHJim I saw him a few months back in Toronto. I went because my wife's a fan, but he put on a great show. I was impressed with his guitar playing. He traded fours with the two guitarists in the band and kept up quite well. He had the Port Dover Pipe Band play for Mull... and when a teenage girl held up a sign that said,"Sign my arm Paul," he called her up and said he'd sign her arm, but he'd better not see it on Ebay. I thoroughly enjoyed myself. My only complaint is that nowadays people seem to think they have to stand throughout a performance in order to enjoy themselves. I'm getting too old for that. When I pay for a seat I want to be able to sit in it. |
|
14 Dec 10 - 01:36 PM (#3053447) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: Les in Chorlton We saw him a few yraes back at manchester MEN Arena. He sang dozens of songs 'what he wrote', clever tunes, words ok, played various guitars, chatted and it was a brilliant night. L in C# |
|
14 Dec 10 - 03:26 PM (#3053529) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: fat B****rd I saw The Beatles at Lincoln Odeon in November 1963. You could actually hear them. Paul did most of the chat, Ringo sang 'Boys' and girls fainted and screamed all ove the place. Great stuff !! Whenever one of PM's shows is on telly he always delivers IMO and he seems to have a permanant and cracking band. |
|
15 Dec 10 - 03:52 AM (#3053803) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: GUEST,Patsy If I was misguided or misinformed about anything in my post, apologies. Unfortunately I was too young to get to see any of the Beatles and because my mother was strict couldn't even attempt to go anywhere to see them so I missed out on that regretfully. Most of the music I have since bought in later years, back then there was always going to be someone who had a copy of Revolver, Rubber Soul, Sargent Pepper, Abbey Road or Let It Be and Beatle hits were always in the charts so there was no need, I thought to go out and buy. The same with the Rolling Stones for me being constantly on the radio I didn't get the urge to buy their music and again someone somewhere would have a copy of Sticky Fingers or something else of theirs. On Christmas Day I will have my Beatle CD's at the ready and enjoy, Merry Christmas!! |
|
15 Dec 10 - 05:23 AM (#3053839) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: cooperman I had a Hofner violin bass in the early seventies (nineteen seventies not eighteen seventies before anyone asks). The neck was long and thin and lacked stability, a bit of a struggle to live with, so I sold it. The tone wasn't that brilliant either. Always wondered how Macca did so well with it. Wish I still had it now though having seen the prices but i guess that's a common feeling amongst old muso's who traded quite a few instruments in those days. |
|
15 Dec 10 - 05:39 AM (#3053843) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: GUEST,glueman First memories of the Beatles was my mother making me do the twist for the entertainment of relatives while the fab four played on Sunday Night at the London Palladium. I preferred Chubby Checker and still do. Just didn't get them or their desperate attempts to stay up with the times or flog black music to white kids, though 'Jet' was a great pop song from Maccer's Wings days. |
|
15 Dec 10 - 06:08 AM (#3053857) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: GUEST,Ed 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' |
|
15 Dec 10 - 06:28 AM (#3053864) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: GUEST,glueman 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. |
|
15 Dec 10 - 07:41 AM (#3053901) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: Wesley S 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. |
|
15 Dec 10 - 08:05 AM (#3053910) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: GUEST,glueman 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. |
|
15 Dec 10 - 08:41 AM (#3053941) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: GUEST,Colin Holt 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). |
|
15 Dec 10 - 08:59 AM (#3053962) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: GUEST,glueman 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. |
|
15 Dec 10 - 09:28 AM (#3053981) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: cooperman 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. |
|
15 Dec 10 - 10:21 AM (#3054004) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: Nobodys bard 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"! |
|
15 Dec 10 - 10:40 AM (#3054015) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: GUEST,Patsy Nick Cave's Let It Be is pretty good too, not as depressing as I thought it would be. |
|
15 Dec 10 - 04:28 PM (#3054230) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: GUEST,Tunesmith 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. |
|
15 Dec 10 - 07:55 PM (#3054399) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: McGrath of Harlow 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. |
|
15 Dec 10 - 08:01 PM (#3054405) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: GUEST McCartney was born the 16th of June, 1942. He's only 68. |
|
15 Dec 10 - 08:02 PM (#3054406) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: bobad June 18 actually. |
|
15 Dec 10 - 11:18 PM (#3054471) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: J-boy Correct.He's"only"68.My mistake. |
|
21 Dec 10 - 11:22 AM (#3058581) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: closet-folkie "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... |
|
22 Dec 10 - 04:50 AM (#3059144) Subject: RE: Paul McCartney From: GUEST A funny take on his terrible Christmas song here: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/1218/1224285829600.html |