McCartney is an embarassment

[Tusker]

[quote]Originally posted by mbl: [b]I think that perhaps the reason I get so bent out of shape by guys like McCartney is that I expect too much from them. Yes, he wrote some great, classic music. [/b][/quote]I agree. He's a one in a million talent. [quote]Originally posted by mbl: [b]Yes, he was (or portrayed himself as) a hip, left-field artist. Why couldn't have just stuck to his guns? What about the whole "hippie/ all you need is love/counterculture/revolution" thing?[/b][/quote]Methinks you are confusing your Beatles. The driving forces were: John wanted to be a "working class hero" and George explored Hinduism and mystical stuff more than the others. McCartney wrote great tunes that bordered on schmaltz and music hall. His occasional rock song (Oh Darling) didn't have much social commentary. [quote]Originally posted by mbl: [b]Especially with George, we had a person who seemed to rise above the phoney show-biz schtick that Paul embraces. I most definitely admire(and aspire to be) the type of person Geroge and John were...[/b][/quote]Here we have a disagreement in our assessment of these individuals. Sir Paul is a simple man, who doesn't think as deeply about "positioning" himself as cutting edge or artistic. He is just a simple tunesmith ... kinda like a blacksmith but different. It was mostly John who courted artists and politicized the Beatles. It was John who saw musicians in the heroic, artistic terms you find attractive. If you want a real contrast between the two ... John married an [i]artist[/i], while Paul married a [i]photography heiress[/i]. :eek: :D So who's real and who's fake? Peace, Jerry :wave:

[Anifa]

MBL, I just thought you might wish to know what some billionaires are capable of doing with SOME of their monies. Here is an exerpt from MPL's company bio. [quote] MPL Communications, Inc. in New York and MPL Communications Ltd. in London were established upon the breakup of the century's greatest musical force, the Beatles. Needing an umbrella for his management and business interests, Paul McCartney founded MPL (it stands for McCartney Productions Ltd.) and charted a quiet but steady course of investment in the area that has always meant the most to him: music. While others in his position have elected to put capital into oil, minerals or other earthly pursuits, Paul opted to go into song publishing. Having never held control of his own compositions during the Beatles era, and so knowing how it feels to have a third party look after your publishing, he was determined to establish himself as a decent music publisher, someone whom the writers or their descendants could trust to cherish their treasures. In short, MPL's music publishing business has been marked by considered acquisitions and sensitive, honest handling of the copyrights. [/quote] [url=http://www.mplcommunications.com/about.asp]MPL Company Bio[/url] Read the full biography and browse around through the site some; you'll be amazed..... I think that you will also feel like a fool for slamming someone that you know little about. Paul McCartney is truly a remarkable MAN, aside from his claim to fame. He has NO NEED to go on a World Tour.......... perhaps, Performing Music comes from his HEART........ he merely asked the going ticket rate; should anyone expect anything less? He could have asked double and still have sold out. [url=http://www.mplcommunications.com/mccartney/charity.htm]MPL Communications, Inc. ... Charities[/url]

[D_dup3]

Can't believe this debate is still going....don't you recognize when you can't change someone's mind????? :confused: Round & round & round & round....it's like listening to "The Fool on The Hill".

[Skip_dup1]

Ya, I was going to stay out of this-I probably should-but usually the reason why things go round for this long is because someone (who shall remain without their three letters) is getting several issuea mixed up. It`s perfectly valid to say that people are sentimental fools for paying so much to see someone who wrote great songs so long ago. That says more about audiences than anything else, though-I think it`s been proven beyond any doubt that most audiences are not overly hung up on musical quality. They want to listen while they enter data, ring up an order or thing about an ex-mate. It`s silly but that ain`t goin nowhere soon. The whole sellout/phony thing is confusing to me. This sounds like someone who just did a term paper on the 60s or something. I mean, artists now don`t even bother establishing credibility before their music ends up on a car commercial. I also think the person without the three letters is getting two currents of the 60s confused-how is getting audiences to come from all over the world, pay sky-high prices to see songs from WAY yesteryear showing anything but love? How is a quiet-living vegetarian who has been knighted, anything other than an example of spreading good vibes? this person is getting guys like The Stones, Aerosmith and co. mixed up with the Weather Underground or something. Would you feel better if Paul started screaming for people to go out and smash windows? these guys were never about that anyway.

[Dan South]

Yeah, last year I paid some serious bucks for two tickets to a performance of the Brandenburg Concertos at Alice Tully Hall. Can you believe that Bach "sellout" still charging high prices for his "oldies" show? An how about those "corporations" who sponsored this ripoff by helping to fund Lincoln Center? Boy, the whole idea really makes me sick! Everyone knows that if it isn't new and cutting edge, it's [sic] "an embarassment." Then, a few months later, I went to see that "sellout" Les Paul at a jazz club. Oh, brother! Can you believe that he's still charging money to play "oldies" like All Of Me? I'm sure it's all some sort of corporate ripoff. I expected him to play some Tool or KoRn or something. I still can't believe that I paid money to hear some old geezer who hasn't written anything new in decades. Why doesn't Les play for free?

[Skip_dup1]

Dan S.- Sorry for the sloppy editing on my last post-I was trying to finish before a meeting started You know, you bring up an issue I was going to get into on another post but let it get by me. Yes, cigarette companies assist in rebuilding efforts after disasters. Monsanto gives funds to art houses. They also infect farms with GM crops through wind dispersal. For that matter, some or the most annoying, airheaded recording acts out there support things like summer camps for city kids (Mariah Carey), or Geeenpeace, or Amnesty International. If nobody buys their CDs, that support is lost. Corporate glomming of the music business is not to be taken lightly. They are moving right now to turn the internet into a corporate toll road, with cops, speed limits and fines. They are also the only people with enough money to bring Phil Collins to Lagos, or Aerosmith to New Delhi.

[Dan South]

Skip, It's a mistake to lump all corporations together. Corporations make the brilliant musical instruments that we play, the airplanes that take us on vacation and to see our families, the medicines that save many lives. Unscrupulous business people exist, and that's apparent in the music industry as it is in other industries. But the notion that corporations are inherently evil bothers me, because it's just not true, not in all cases, probably not in a majority of cases. Besides, I'd rather have the airwaves flooded with a hundred Britney Spears clones than endure a single disastrous oil spill like the one off of Spain recently. I don't like insipid pop acts any more than you do, but let's keep things in perspective. Britney Spears is not wiping out entire ecosystems. The chemical companies of Louisiana ARE. There's a difference between annoyance and evil. Tolerate annoyance, challenge evil.

[Skip_dup1]

Dan- Evil perhaps is not the right word. Evil implies intent, intellegence. the problem with corporations, even those that provide things we may like, is that they are ponderous, unresponvise inert entities, where none can be held accountable. Who are you going to take out the punishment for the Spainish oil spill on? the oil company? the captain? the country that registered the piece of crap boat and allowed it to keep sailing? the same thing could be said about a guitar company that knowingly uses wood logged illegally, or an airline company that fudges inspection reports. Honestly, I have been looking more toward small-volume, high-quality makers for my gear of late where possible. They are not evil perhaps, but neither is a carnivorous dinosaur. Both are dangerous.

[whitefang]

Let's get some perspective. Millions of people spend millions of dollars on the music we here go to great lengths to flame. That millions of people just love it doesn't make that music any more palatable. But it does point out that you can't knock success. Dan would take great numbers of Britney Spears' over an oil spill? That's an unfair comparison, but I'm with him. At least, you can turn Britney off! Not so easy with an oil spill. And that's part of the gist of this. You don't like that kind of music? Maybe I don't either. But the fact that you can point to a hundred different artists that you think are more talented means that you at least have a choice. That nobody really is force-feeding the Backstreet Boys down your throat should be a clue that you shouldn't push who or what YOU like in anybody's face as well. Maybe I'm not impressed that so many of these cookie-cutter cute "pop" stars donate money to good causes. Maybe I think they do it simply for the PR. And the tax write-offs. But if someone deserving of their help GETS it, I'm not gonna grouse about it. Did you ever stop to think about what if the situation were reversed? People here are putting down McCartney for the price of his concert tickets. Because he supposedly sold out to the big commercial interests that display his old tunes and try to cash in on nostalgia. Would you all feel differently about any of the new artists out there if they made the same amount of cash? Just what IS the main gripe here, anyway? That people spend their money on something they might WANT to? Just who tells YOU how to spend your paycheck? Whitefang

[T. Ehl]

[quote]Originally posted by skip: [b]Evil perhaps is not the right word. Evil implies intent, intellegence. [/b][/quote]is a shark intelligent

[Dan South]

[quote]Originally posted by T. Ehl: [b] [quote]Originally posted by skip: [b]Evil perhaps is not the right word. Evil implies intent, intellegence. [/b][/quote]is a shark intelligent[/b][/quote]No, nor is it evil. A shark does what it's been designed to do - rid the world of excess fish and sea lions. Occasionally (very infrequently) it mistakes a person for a sea lion. Sometimes the person is badly injured before the shark can spit it out. Worldwide, sharks kill about ten people a year. How many people to PEOPLE kill in a year?

[Jotown]

[quote]Originally posted by gmd: [b]Jotown-GROW UP! Or at least wait until you either have something to say on a particular subject, rather than wasting forum space with childish insults. Do you have anything intelligent to say on this subject? If so, let's hear it... :rolleyes: [/b][/quote]I have posted several times on this thread so maybe you should roll back and read. MBL has made some ridiculous statements and I don't think that anything would be out of line in response to his obvious ignorance. This was a thread intended to be inflamatory. Stating that "my band would blow McCartney off the stage" was an inflamatory remark that deserved an inflamatory response. When talking to a childish person you sometimes have to talk at their level. Nuff said.

[mbl]

WHITEFANG-The "main gripe here" is about INTEGRITY, which I feel people like McCartney, Mick Jagger, Pete Townsend, etc. are sorely lacking in. Wasn't the whole sixties vibe about changing the world with peace, love, and "Tune in, turn on, drop out?" What happened to that whole anti-establishment "we can change the world, hope I die before I get old" line? My point is that they were obviously jumping on that bandwagon to sell records back then, and didn't mean a word of it. These guys helped mis-lead an entire generation. Rock stars are so worshipped that people follow them blindly like sheep, willingly paying whatever exorbident prices these "gods" demand for their oldies shows. McCartney is so pathetically addicted to admiration that he can't stay out of the public eye for any length of time. He HAS to parade his lame poetry and terrible paintings on every talk show on televison. He is THE WEALTHIEST MAN IN BRITAIN, worth over a BILLION dollars. He should donate 100 percent of the millions he has been making on his recent tours to charity. When he does something like that I'll shut up about him...

[Lee Flier]

[quote]Originally posted by mbl: [b]The "main gripe here" is about INTEGRITY, which I feel people like McCartney, Mick Jagger, Pete Townsend, etc. are sorely lacking in. Wasn't the whole sixties vibe about changing the world with peace, love, and "Tune in, turn on, drop out?"[/b][/quote]No. I think this is where you're getting hung up. Not everybody in the sixties believed in that, although some people experimented with it for a short time just to see what all the fuss was about. The Stones and the Who certainly were never about that, and the Beatles for the most part became disillusioned with the whole thing after a couple of years, although I think they gave it a sincere look. [quote][b]What happened to that whole anti-establishment "we can change the world, hope I die before I get old" line? My point is that they were obviously jumping on that bandwagon to sell records back then, and didn't mean a word of it. [/b][/quote]Lots of people do and think things when they're young and later learn that they were naive in their thinking, or they have different priorities later in life. That doesn't make them hypocrites. Do you really expect that when you're 60 you won't feel any differently about anything than you do now? And if you do, would that make you a hypocrite? I had the great fortune to meet George Harrison back in the late 80's. One of the things he said to me really struck me: "I used to really be bitter about everything that happened with the Beatles, all the headaches with money and the loss of our private lives and everything that went along with that. But now I realize that the important thing is that the Beatles' music made a lot of people very, very happy." I think that's basically Paul McCartney's attitude. [quote][b]McCartney is so pathetically addicted to admiration that he can't stay out of the public eye for any length of time. He HAS to parade his lame poetry and terrible paintings on every talk show on televison.[/b][/quote]I don't like much of his post-Beatles work either, although some of it I like a lot. And I think he'd be better off if he didn't try to do art or poetry classical music publicly too - but it's really none of my business if that's what he wants to do. I don't worship him as a god. I just think he's a very, very good musician and songwriter - but he's a human being too. To get up on stage at all and have the kind of success that he's had, you have to be "addicted" in the first place. Nobody should ever criticize a performer for wanting to perform, nor be surprised if they aren't the same in middle and old age as they are in youth. Like others have said, if you don't like what he does now, don't go. I didn't. It doesn't change my respect for the guy. [quote][b] He is THE WEALTHIEST MAN IN BRITAIN, worth over a BILLION dollars. He should donate 100 percent of the millions he has been making on his recent tours to charity. When he does something like that I'll shut up about him...[/b][/quote]McCartney DOES give a lot of money to charity, and in fact has his own charities to make sure the money is going to the right places. Maybe you just don't hear about it because he doesn't tend to brag about it. He's also been very involved in civic affairs - through good old fashioned lobbying, not just putting on benefit shows and trying to "change the world" with his music. As to how much he gives or whether he should give ALL of his wealth away from now on, that's really none of your business. And incidentally, Paul's late wife Linda was from New York City and Paul has a lot of family and friends there. He was scheduled to fly out of New York on 9/11, and that tragedy did affect him in a very real and personal way. I'm not about to fault him for writing a song about it! You have a point in there somewhere MBL but I think you're being unnecessarily judgemental about someone who is not only extremely talented but basically a very decent guy compared to a lot of entertainers I could mention.

[mbl]

Lee Flier---Your post above is one of the most intelligent, thought out replies so far. Thats the kind of dialogue I've been looking for.--- Thanks :)

[Dan South]

[quote]Originally posted by mbl: [b]WHITEFANG-The "main gripe here" is about INTEGRITY, which I feel people like McCartney, Mick Jagger, Pete Townsend, etc. are sorely lacking in.[/b][/quote]No one is forcing you to listen to their music. [quote][b]Wasn't the whole sixties vibe about changing the world with peace, love, and "Tune in, turn on, drop out?"[/b][/quote]Let me say, MBL, that I am IMPRESSED that you know THIS much about the 60's. Many in your age group would not. But you've oversimplified things to the extreme. The sixties was a very complex time. You could just as easily have assumed the 60's was about beating the Russians in the space race ("to put a man on the moon before the end of this decade"), about rioting and looting ("Burn, baby, burn!"), about ending social oppression ("I have a dream..."), or about fighting the Communist threat ("We are going to Vietnam back into the stone age.") Don't make the mistake of attibuting catch phrases to individuals who didn't coin them. John was a peacenick and it nearly got him deported from American shores, but Paul never jumped on John's bandwagon. "Turn on, tune in, and drop out," was the mantra of Timothy Leary, an American university professor who dabbled in LSD. As far as I can recall, Leary had no direct influence on the Beatles or any of the other acts you mentioned. He was more than likely influenced by THEM - or by their images - to drop acid. [quote][b]What happened to that whole anti-establishment "we can change the world, hope I die before I get old" line?[/b][/quote]Townshend wrote the line about dying before he got old. He hasn't, but two of his bandmates (and good friends) have. The line was not meant to be taken literally; it underscored the vast "generation gap" in attitudes at the time. Younger people protested the war in Vietnam, pollution, social inequality, etc. These were extremely radical ideas at the time, as radical as students today protesting the War on Terrorism and urging everyone to convert to Islam. That's how extreme the attitudes were in the 60's. It was not a bunch of lip service to sell records. It was an ideological civil war. [quote][b]My point is that they were obviously jumping on that bandwagon to sell records back then, and didn't mean a word of it.[/b][/quote]No, they meant it. And their fans meant it. And protestors who marched in the street and dodged bullets and tear gas meant it. You can't imagine how committed people were to the ideals of pop culture in the 60's. [quote][b]These guys helped mis-lead an entire generation.[/b][/quote]On the contrary, the generation was leading itself. [quote][b]Rock stars are so worshipped that people follow them blindly like sheep, willingly paying whatever exorbident prices these "gods" demand for their oldies shows.[/b][/quote]If there were a shred of truth to this, the Beatles would not have stopped touring in 1966. They would have continued to play concerts TO THIS DAY if, as you suggest, they were only in it for the money. [quote][b]McCartney is so pathetically addicted to admiration that he can't stay out of the public eye for any length of time.[/b][/quote]Given the content of the only thread that you've ever started on this board, I suspect it is YOU, our young friend, who is addicted to admiration, or at the very least, attention. I once heard a story about Vanilla Ice going into a mall to see how many people would recognize him. McCartney is not "pathetically addicted to admiration;" he's providing a service to people who want to buy that service. A lot of people have dreamt much of their lives about seeing the Beatles live. Paul's concert is an opportunity to experience a reasonable facsimile. [quote][b]He HAS to parade his lame poetry and terrible paintings on every talk show on televison.[/b][/quote]In case you didn't know this, talk shows are "for profit" businesses, not charity organizations. If they put someone on the air, it's because they can MAKE MORE MONEY having that person on the air than NOT on the air. If sponsors see McCartney on the guest list, they'll pay wheelbarrow loads of money for commercials, because they know that a lot of people will watch the program regardless of whether it's about music, art, whatever. It's the same with EVERY celebrity and EVERY talk show in the world. [quote][b]He is THE WEALTHIEST MAN IN BRITAIN, worth over a BILLION dollars. He should donate 100 percent of the millions he has been making on his recent tours to charity. When he does something like that I'll shut up about him...[/b][/quote]In many cases tours don't make money, they lose money. They're undertaken as a marketing exercise to increase record sales. McCartney is not padding his wallet with the ticket receipts. Even if he were, what do you have against a musician getting paid for a performance? Are you a communist or just grossly envious of anyone who CAN make money with their music? Besides, the wealthiest man in Britain? I'm sure that there are industrialists and CEO's who are work more - Branson of Virgin Atlantic, for example). And then there's that Prince Charles fellow...

[Jotown]

mbl said: [quote]The "main gripe here" is about INTEGRITY, which I feel people like McCartney, Mick Jagger, Pete Townsend, etc. are sorely lacking in. [/quote]If you had started this thread about integrity, instead of insulting the man, his fans, and people with a different oppinion than yours, you might have gotten a different response. "My band can blow McCartneys off stage", is not a statement about integrtiy. You have not been talking about integrity, but now you go there to try to defend your earlier inflamatory statements and thread heading.

[sbrock1san.rr.com]

McCartney isn't a hypocrite for making money these days. Check your history mbl. The Beatles licensed tons of merchandise, had their own Saturday-morning cartoon show, and constantly re-packaged their singles to make more money. Many of the Beatles moved to America, the Caribbean, and Monaco to maximize their after-tax dollars because of the high personal income taxes in England. They were [b]all about[/b] capitalism. I do have a problem with high ticket prices these days and I stay away from many shows because of principle. I can afford the shows but in a difficult economy it does bother me when recording artists price gouge. I really wanted to see the Black Crowes with Jimmy Page a couple of years ago but I refused to fork over $100 per ticket.

[Dan South]

[quote]Originally posted by SteveRB: [b]They were [b]all about[/b] capitalism. [/b][/quote]Were they all about capitalism or were they being capitalized upon? ;)

[mbl]

---HEY JOTOWN---I like that last post much better than the one you insulted me in. You really can't question my integrity for saying "my band would blow McCartney off the stage", however. I WAS half-joking, but not totally. Seriously, it really would depend on what the crowd make-up is. I think his usual crowd would hate our punk/alternative style. If he could somehow play incognito in the kind of clubs we play, (I know that would be tough), he couldn't hang. They would get booed off the stage. People would make fun of his drummer, too... :D

[Jotown]

[quote]Were they all about capitalism or were they being capitalized upon? [/quote]Anyone who knows anything about the Beatles knows that they got royaly screwed while they were the Beatles. It was only afterwards that they learned how to be capitalists. That 30 some years later, the world has put tremendous value on the Beatles body of work, and that some of the Beatles,(mostly Mr. McCartney) have continued to create good music and still remain viable artists, is something to be commended, not condemned. Thats how I see it anyway.

[sbrock1san.rr.com]

[quote]Originally posted by Jotown: [b] [quote][/quote]Anyone who knows anything about the Beatles knows that they got royaly screwed while they were the Beatles. It was only afterwards that they learned how to be capitalists..[/b][/quote]I admit I don't know much about the Beatles, but just because they may have got screwed didn't mean the [b]effort[/b] and [b]intention [/b] to make money wasn't there. Paul McCartney is a billionaire....I'd like to be screwed like that. :thu:

[Anifa]

originally posted by SteveRB: [quote] I admit I don't know much about the Beatles, but just because they may have got screwed didn't mean the effort and intention to make money wasn't there. They released over 30 albums and tons of singles in just seven years. Paul McCartney is a billionaire....I'd like to be screwed like that. [/quote]I seem to be missing something here!!! Was John Lennon a billionaire? Was George Harrison a billionaire? Is Ringo Starr a billionaire? Did Paul McCartney make his billions as a BEATLE??? NO, he invested his earnings from time spent with the Beatles wisely. Were some of you YOUNGSTERS aware the much of the Beatles collection was sold right out from underneath the noses of the actual band members? Michael Jackson still holds interest in much of the Beatles collection; he used it as collatoral to fund his last recording project... who knows what will happen to his portions of the collection because I do believe he defaulted in repayment of the loan. When all of this scandal came about, McCartney was the ONLY Beatle that exhausted any serious effort in securing the interest of remaining portions of their collection. He even went back in, to my recollection, and had to PURCHASE his own writings to regain his ownership rights. It was a crock... but it is also a part of why the copyright laws were revised. McCartney, my youthful friends, is not the entity that is cleaning up on the profits of Beatles nostalgia. He may still own a handful of their works, but definitely not the entire collection. Where is all this STUFF coming from??? Corporate sell out??????

[sbrock1san.rr.com]

[quote]Originally posted by Jotown: [b][QUOTE]That 30 some years later, the world has put tremendous value on the Beatles body of work, and that some of the Beatles,(mostly Mr. McCartney) have continued to create good music and still remain viable artists, is something to be commended, not condemned.[/b][/quote]I was in no way comdemming the body of work and the music. I think they made music because they loved music and that is the prime motivation for most musicians. When I said "they were all about capitalism" what I meant to say is that they didn't shy away from making money at all. That's why I don't feel McCartney is a hypocrite today. Anyone who has albums in the store and movies in the theatre is out to make money at some level. I love capitalism so I've never viewed that as a problem.

[sbrock1san.rr.com]

[quote]Originally posted by Anifa: [QB]Did Paul McCartney make his billions as a BEATLE??? [QB][/quote]He doesn't actually [b]have[/b] a billion dollars. He has over one billion dollars in [b]assets[/b], much of which is rights to the Beatles catalog of music. I never said he was a corporate sellout. I just said he is a capitalist because he has TV specials, DVDs, greatest hits albums, etc. It's art on one level and business on another.

[Joachim P. Dyndale]

And thank you once again Lee, for such a good reply. I now feel the subject is definately sorted out. This thread should be discontinued imediately... It seems as if none of the more recent replies add anything at all, they just repeat what's been said several times earlier in the thread. MBL has gotten his message accross, and he's got our message. We understand eachother, but we disagree on many points, and there realy isn't much more to say. Let's call it a thread, shall we?

[Moronix]

[quote]Originally posted by mbl: [b]I WILL NOT be lining up in 30 yrs to see any of today's musicians pull similar bullshit.[/b][/quote]MBL, Don't make predictions about where you will be at in 30 years. Take it from some one who is listening to music that they would never have considered 30years ago. My lif is nothing like i thought it would be thirty or even 10 years ago Robert Moron----ix The name stays

[fantasticsound]

[quote]Originally posted by Moronix: [b]MBL, Don't make predictions about where you will be at in 30 years. Take it from some one who is listening to music that they would never have considered 30years ago. My lif is nothing like i thought it would be thirty or even 10 years ago Robert Moron----ix The name stays[/b][/quote]Yeah!!! 2 years ago Robert probably thought he'd still be at Alesis!! ;) (K-i-d-d-i-n-g...)