mbl Posted November 29, 2002 Posted November 29, 2002 After watching Paul McCartney's love letter to himself on ABC a couple of nights ago, I have come to the conclusion that he is the most cheezy, embarassing figure in rock. There were more shots of the audience crying in there over-priced seats than there were of the music being played. ($80.00 dollars for NOSE-BLEED seats? $300 for the floor? How much more money does a billionaire need?) His overweight, over-playing drummer kept speeding up, mainly because he is such a ham he doesn't pay attention to what the others are playing. (The other musicians were actually pretty good, and seemed to play their roles in the band quite well.) The whole "let's wave the American flag" trick is the oldest one in the book, and shows what little class McCartney has left. I could go on and on about the show, but basically the guy is so cheezy and out-of-touch it's pathetic. Yes, he co-wrote some of the greatest rock songs of all time, but that was 30 years ago. He hasn't written anything great since "Maybe I'm Amazed" in 1970. Something tells me that McCartney has always been like this, but that John and George managed to keep him from ruining the Beatles. It's ironic that the two intelligent, witty and iconoclastic Beatles have gone and left us with the two who have none of those traits...
D_dup3 Posted November 29, 2002 Posted November 29, 2002 Some of your criticisms are valid but McCorney ( ;) ) had a much greater role in the good things of the Beatles than you give him credit for...and we could all take potshots at various "embarrassing" pop culture figures, including many who are revered by their respective fans (or society).
Hippie Posted November 29, 2002 Posted November 29, 2002 First off, what would a billionaire with all the fame in the world like Paul Mac....ya know what, nevermind..I'll pretend I didn't read MBL's post. It's quite obvious he doesn't know what he's talking about. Matt In two days, it won't matter.
mbl Posted November 30, 2002 Author Posted November 30, 2002 D-You're right, McCartney did have a lot to do with the Beatle's success. He was the taskmaster that kept the thing going when the others had gotten tired of being Beatles. Still, I think he was the "Wayne Newton" of the group, meaning he was much more into the phoney showbiz stuff than the others. You can see a lot of that on the Anthology videos. John and George were always snubbing their noses at the pompous stuff while Paul embraced it. John and George kept him in check, and after the break-up he obviously didn't learn anything from them. The whole point of my topic is that I'm sick of guys like McCartney, The Rolling Stones, Aerosmith, etc. flogging their dead horse music to the masses who wallow in the nostalgia. I wasn't there in the 60's, and I sick of them being re-gurgitated all the time. Stop living in the past. Today's music is much better anyway...
gmd Posted November 30, 2002 Posted November 30, 2002 MBL-I have to admit you are pretty much right about McCartney. I saw the ABC show and agree with you on the "cheese" aspect, which Paul would have to be blamed for as he listed himself as "Executive Producer". However, I don't get why you have so much animosity toward him and his audience. If they want to pay $300 to sit and cry through an oldies show, what's it to you?
BP3 Posted November 30, 2002 Posted November 30, 2002 [quote]Originally posted by mbl: [b]I'm sick of guys like McCartney, The Rolling Stones, Aerosmith, etc. flogging their dead horse music to the masses who wallow in the nostalgia. I wasn't there in the 60's, and I sick of them being re-gurgitated all the time. Stop living in the past. Today's music is much better anyway...[/b][/quote]Yeah, Shakira's da bomb!! [img]http://arhra.ath.cx/smilies/killtard.gif[/img]
deanmass Posted November 30, 2002 Posted November 30, 2002 Why exactly is this original post insightful..? Paul has ALWAYS been the POP Beatle... Did you expect to watch a cutting edge, fresh musical performance..? Come on... No one would argue that Paul's contribution to Pop music is of great significance, and that he is musically brilliant, but I can't honestly believe that someone would have the expectation that an ex-Beatle is gonna play anything other than exactly what is expected of him. The people that paid to see him probably went home happy. $300 per is not out of line to see a legend, even if he is farting the national anthem...Either way, you got something of interest to talk about around the water cooler the next day...
KB Gunn Posted November 30, 2002 Posted November 30, 2002 [quote] Today's music is much better anyway... [/quote]??????? Better than the Beatles? The Stones? Zep? You are kidding right?? My God! The Monkees had more talent than the garbage the industry is shoveling out these days. Doc KB Gunn website: www.visionoutreach.net ....government is a necessary evil, but it is dangerous nonetheless ... somewhat like a drug. Just as a drug that in the proper dosage can save your life, an overdose of government can be fatal. -Neal Boortz
Magpel Posted November 30, 2002 Posted November 30, 2002 Paul loves to be loved, that's certain. I think he's an all time great melodist, regardless of genre, a great singer (was, at least) and a solid multi-instrumentalist. I don't think he really gives a damn about the words, though. He cares about the way the verbal phrase sits in the melodic phrase, but making sense has never been much of a concern. He's not a gifted practitioner of wordplay, ala Lennon. His lyrics *act* like narratives, but there's seldom a discernable story. Whatever. With melodies like his, who needs anything else? Check out the Sweet Clementines CD at bandcamp
ernest828 Posted November 30, 2002 Posted November 30, 2002 I love the Beatles music but there are alot of their stuff that was not all that good and alot of it was Pauls. I think it would be best if he retired just like Jordan. I dissagree with the last post about his melodies being so good he doesn`t need lyrics. Thats nonsense. I don`t listen to his new stuff and probably won`t. I am not into rehashing the past or living there in the music but to say todays music is better...I`d like to get specific on that. There is one handful of artists out there who are writing classic songs today. B. Joel and Elton were two of `em but even they have lost touch. Rob Thomas comes to mind and Alanis are still writing quality. Even the Boss has lost touch. I guess thats what happens after so much success? I`d appreciate Paul so much more if he`d call it quits and the same goes for Elton John, Michael Jordan and Aerosmith. Ernest
Salyphus Posted November 30, 2002 Posted November 30, 2002 [quote]Originally posted by deanmass: [b]No one would argue that Paul's contribution to Pop music is of great significance, and that he is musically brilliant[/b][/quote]:confused: I would argue these things if I thought there was any point in stating the obvious... Are you sure that's what you meant to say?
Joachim P. Dyndale Posted November 30, 2002 Posted November 30, 2002 I have to say, MBL: I find it very hard to respect your opinions. Wether you like the music or not, McCartney is a music legend. He is a GREAT musician, and was a great singer. Co-wrote some great Beatles songs?! Give me a break. In 1963 the Lennon/McCartney song-writing duo was almost non-existent. They basically wrote their own songs but still published them as Lennon/McCartney songs. They helped each other out with a phrase or some words here and there, but they wrote their songs seperately. McCartney wasn't the Beatle most engaged in politics, but he wasn't politically ignorant either. I have always thought that he seems like a sympathetic and humorous guy. I find it very natural that his performances no longer match those 20-40 years ago. He's sixty, give the guy a break! A huge amount of people really want to see/hear him live, and since he wants to let them experience that, let him do it. As I said before, The Beatles' music will outlive most of todays music. A huge part of The Beatles' music is McCartney's music. One note about the drummer... I didn't see the show, so I'm really on thin ice here. If that really was Abe Laboriel Jr., then I find it VERY hard to believe that he wasn't any good. Laboriel Jr. has an amazing groove, just like his father. I can imagine that he might have adjusted the tempo slightly throughout the song to give certain parts a greater "drive". If it serves the music, tempo adjustments along the way are fine by me, I respect that you might feel differently about this. -Joachim Dyndale -------------------- Einstein: The difference between genius and stupidity is: Genius has limits My Blog...
Meriphew_dup1 Posted November 30, 2002 Posted November 30, 2002 Paul is still the best singer ever, well maybe except for Marvin. www.meriphew.com
Tony Z Posted November 30, 2002 Posted November 30, 2002 Personally I think that anyone who wants to take the position that the Beatles didn't contribute much to pop music is nuts. Paul and John were the heart of the Beatles. They were, and still are, some of the (if not THE) best songwriters of all time. Only a lunatic would argue otherwise, because that position has been stated by professional songwriters worldwide. Whether you like their music or not, it was totally revolutionary and cutting edge in its time. Yes, it's a little dated now, but the Beatles imprint is on virtually every piece of music being recorded today. People paid to see the Paul Mc of the Beatles. Even though he's getting long in the tooth, that's what he gave them. If some of you young guys live long enough, your going to "cry though your memories" in the future also. The only problem is going to be that your nostalgic music won't be nearly as creative or as memorable as the Beatles, but I guess that's what music is all about...Opinions. Even ill informed ones. Tony Z New Genesis Music
Joachim P. Dyndale Posted November 30, 2002 Posted November 30, 2002 [quote]Originally posted by Sal Paradise: [b]Marvin the Paranoid Android? :D [/b][/quote]I think he was referring to Marvin Gaye ;) But now I can hardly stop thinking what it would sound like if Marvin the Paranoid Android tried to sing a Beatles song... :) -Joachim Dyndale -------------------- Einstein: The difference between genius and stupidity is: Genius has limits My Blog...
Chaz Posted November 30, 2002 Posted November 30, 2002 Even at sixty, Paul has a tremendous following. How many of us will be able to say that when we are sixty? I would ventured to say....not many!!! Although I would not pay $300 to see anyone in concert, many people were willing to do so because they believed that Paul was worth it, and to that degree....he was!!! Just my 2 cents. Haven Music Productions Tampa, FL www DOT havenmp DOT com
Salyphus Posted November 30, 2002 Posted November 30, 2002 Brain the size of a planet and all they want me to do is sing these silly love songs... :p
Lee Tyler Posted November 30, 2002 Posted November 30, 2002 Cheezy? A ham? Sounds like the making of a fine omelette. Great observations MBL. Your insight into the obvious lovefest Sir Paul has with himself is awe inspiring. :freak: Cheer up. Help is a click away. :D [url=http://www.pil.net/~lgj/psychologicalhelp.html]Psychological help on-line[/url] Joe Pine (60's talk show host who sported a wooden leg) to Frank Zappa -- "So, with your long hair, I guess that makes you a woman." Frank Zappa's response -- "So, with your wooden leg, I guess that makes you a table." http://www.nowhereradio.com/artists/album.php?aid=2001&alid=-1
Joachim P. Dyndale Posted November 30, 2002 Posted November 30, 2002 Sal: Right on!! :thu: -Joachim Dyndale -------------------- Einstein: The difference between genius and stupidity is: Genius has limits My Blog...
Hippie Posted November 30, 2002 Posted November 30, 2002 Well, if 'today's music is better' why is it these old rockers do so well these days? Three weeks ago, the first 2 spots in Billboard was Elvis hits, & The Stones 40 licks. Why?, because most of today's music isn't all that great. You sure wouldn't have seen, let's say, Gene Autrey return to the pop charts back in the '60's or '70's. Anotherwords, when new music is as exciting as the older stuff, people will take to it and there will be no need for the 'cheezy embarrasing old fat dinosaurs'. Matt In two days, it won't matter.
not coaster MODERATOR Posted November 30, 2002 Posted November 30, 2002 The Beatles were larger as a sum than individual parts. John and Georges post-Beatle stuff wasn't all that great either. They needed eachother. I don't live in the past but to categorically stomp on the Stones, Zep and Beatles is a bit wack.
mbl Posted November 30, 2002 Author Posted November 30, 2002 Some interesting (and a couple that were almost nice) replies above, and some that didn't read my original posts completely or didn't understand what I was trying to say. I realize McCartney is a god to many, and when you worship somebody you become blind to reality. To me guys like Paul, Mick Jagger, etc., are phoney. They came up in the sixties pretending to be such anti-establishment hippie rebels and the truth is they're no more rebellious than Wayne Newton or Ronald Reagan. A big phoney act to sell records with. Corporate rock all the way. Get out your Visa cards, get in your SUVs and line up for the $300 tickets to see the "rebels" peddling nostalgia...
Anifa Posted November 30, 2002 Posted November 30, 2002 It's amazing that you feel that Sir Paul over-priced his tickets at prices ranging between $80.00 to $300.00 each. Britney gets $80.00 and upward for her shows... and she's not a legend. I viewed Ticketmaster's sales in a few various states across the nation to see how quickly the America Tour was selling out. Tickets were sold out within merely hours of opening; some within only minutes. Afterwards, I conducted searches to find different sales outlets that were selling Paul McCartney Tickets... and scalpers around the nation were collecting between $800.00 to $1400.00 a pop. Washington, D.C. tickets we pulling tops. I think that Sir Paul's request for ticket pricing was a VERY MODEST and HUMBLE figure considering what the tickets actually went for to the buying population. People were PAYING the price! Give it up MBL, Paul McCartney could roll out on a stage in a wheel chair with a beard dragging the floor, and he would still sell out every seat in the house. Also, I must say Sir Paul has done an excellent job in maintaining his youth; at sixty he still looks as good as a man in his thirties. If he was the "EXECUTIVE PRODUCER" of the show, then it "IS" his credit to receive; nothing wrong in stating the facts. Nonetheless, Paul McCartney's name is written in history and is world renowned. His name shall live on as part of a group that shaped the future of music for generations to come. The Beatles, whether it be John, Paul, George, or Ringo, ARE a legend and will live on long beyond the life's of any survivor of the group. Even when Sir Paul and Ringo pass; the Beatles nostalgia will continue to earn money for generations, if not centuries. How many of these current POP fad groups or artists will be able to sell the mere essence of their name after a few years... better yet, how much do you think their memories will earn after they die...? You can take the man away from his music, but you can't take the music out of the man. Books by Craig Anderton through Amazon Sweetwater: Bruce Swedien\'s "Make Mine Music"
Nawledge Posted November 30, 2002 Posted November 30, 2002 I agree with you ernest, except on the Elton John account, I think he still has some icredible songwriting ability left, and has proven it recently.
linwood Posted November 30, 2002 Posted November 30, 2002 I bought two tickets to see him at $300 each and that's a lot for me to spend on a concert. In the past few months I also bought tickets to see, Yellowjackets,Michael McDonald,Herbie Hancock,The Pat Metheny Group,Chick Corea,GooGoo Dolls, Etta James, Michael Franks, Dashboard Confessional, Gonzalo Rubalcaba,and John Mayer. Was McCartney worth $600 for me and the wife. You bet!! I wanted to go the LA the next day and see him again, but couldn't make it. We might go see Joe Cocker and the Stones in Dec. But hey, we're old farts. I'm 49 and she's 44. What do I know about good music anyway. Imagine paying money to see all those hacks.
skip bitman Posted November 30, 2002 Posted November 30, 2002 Paul is the greatest song writer of our time next to john lennon.The beatles are ten steps higher then any other groups or solo performers. Also no other group has had more influence on music and our culture then they had.You can dispute all you want (personal taste) but you cant say Im wrong about thier impact on the world its fact.the proof is in the puddin.all the other groups are mere mortals
Felix_dup1 Posted November 30, 2002 Posted November 30, 2002 [quote]Originally posted by Hippie: [b]Well, if 'today's music is better' why is it these old rockers do so well these days? Three weeks ago, the first 2 spots in Billboard was Elvis hits, & The Stones 40 licks. Why?, because most of today's music isn't all that great. You sure wouldn't have seen, let's say, Gene Autrey return to the pop charts back in the '60's or '70's. Anotherwords, when new music is as exciting as the older stuff, people will take to it and there will be no need for the 'cheezy embarrasing old fat dinosaurs'. Matt[/b][/quote]Don't you think that the buying power of the boomers, combined with the massive marketing effort to take full advantage of the buying power of the boomers, was enough to drive the sales of these albums up? I was watching the show the other night, and briefly entertained the thought of starting a thread about it here, but I quickly dismissed it as I didn't want to start a flame war. I'll give Paul credit for his significant contributions to music and some truly great songs. But the televised concert was far less than I expected from someone who is mostly revered in the halls of this forum. I didn't think it sounded good, I didn't think the performances were inspired... sure it appeared to be an emotional, fun nostalgic trip for many of the people in the audience (and make sure to get them on camera so everyone will know, damnit), but it wasn't for me. ...but then I'm a Gen-X, so maybe that's the missing link.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.