Who is Paul McCartney?

[tree]

You can't rest on your laurels forever. Paul McCartney's best work is inarguably 45 years behind him.

Seems like a non sequitur to me.

His best work still resonates powerfully with an awful lot of people regardless of how old it is.

If he had quit writing and recording music 45 years ago, maybe he could be considered "resting on his laurels", but he obviously hasn't.

[Bertram Henze]

His best work still resonates powerfully with an awful lot of people regardless of how old it is.

He never surpassed "Hard Day's Night".

[Bernie Daniel]

You can't rest on your laurels forever. Paul McCartney's best work is inarguably 45 years behind him....

I know and they used to say that about Johann Sebastian Bach too!

[Dave Greenspoon]

My oldest saw Kanye for his 19th b-day in Brooklyn; he knew every word and every beat. He and his friend were the only two white faces he could see in the crowd. At one point, the folks in front of them turned around to express they were impressed. My kid also knows who Paul--and the Fab Four--is/were. I posted on FB the true story that follows:

It's 1986-87, at my work-study job in the A/V Lab--two students come to check out a viewing room; TV in the background was running a tape of "Our American Century" or some such. The Beatles' appearance on the Ed Sullivan show was on and inspired the following exchange:

Clueless student #1: Who'se that on the TV?

Slightly less clueless student #2: Oh, that's Paul McCartney.

Clueless student #1: Really? Who is the band he's playing with?

Slightly less clueless student #2: That's the band he was in before Wings.

So, what's my point? That people grow and learn. When I was a teen listening to Clapton, Zep, etc. I really had no idea about Robert Johnson, Howling Wolf. etc. During my enlistment listening to Alabama, etc I had no appreciation for Monroe, F&S, etc. much less the old-time/Appalachian traditions that preceded them. The Carolina Chocolate Drops make it clear that they are trying to reintroduce forgotten "black" music to the black kids. So, while this is equally funny-sad, IMO it is only the latest iteration of "the more things change..."

[Bernie Daniel]

He never surpassed "Hard Day's Night".

But but but "Yesterday" has been covered about 2500 times....that ain't hay.

[MikeEdgerton]

We might as well look at the Tweets that sparked it all

[jaycat]

. . .
If he had quit writing and recording music 45 years ago, maybe he could be considered "resting on his laurels", but he obviously hasn't.

If he had quit writing and recording music 45 years ago, I would have a lot more respect for him.

If there is anyone on here who honestly believes that any of the Beatles made better music during their solo careers than when they were together, raise your hand. (Possible exception -- Lennon's 1st solo record).

Oh, the Grammies, a handy fallback. Conveniently forgetting Christopher Cross, Milli Vanilli, etc. Yes, and packing 41 stadiums, well there are a hell of a lot of Boomers with disposable income longing to relive the Good Old Days . . .

Interesting how when these guys get a bit long in the tooth, they'll try anything. Paul and Kanye, Dylan does a Christmas record, Elvis C. and his string quartet . . . It's OK, Muhammad Ali and Joe Louis didn't know when to quit either.

OK, rant over . . .

[DavidKOS]

My oldest saw Kanye for his 19th b-day in Brooklyn; he knew every word and every beat.

Word and beat...where is the melody and chord changes?

http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-rap-music-real-music

Some people claim rap is not music.

No melody = not music by dictionary definition:

"What defines music? I am not a hater of rap music. I enjoy several of the popular artists today. My opinion however is that rap should be grouped into a category all on its own. Music is usually defined by instruments and singing, so while it does not quite fit into this category, maybe it could be called a form of poetry, since that is what rap is at its core. Rap is a form of art for sure as are all other genres, but I do not believe it quite fits in with other MUSIC persay."

"Ask a rapper to "sing" any song, just once... The fact sadly is that rap is not music, but a mix of sounds, and already used beats. Any rapper you ask to actually "sing" any other song will fail miserably. The "talent" they have is not in their voice, but could be in their ability to mix like sounds, and contrasting sounds that people can dance to. It's not a real music, it's borrowed from others, and then strung together with lyrics."

Others of course say rap is just as music music as anything else.

'The opposition keeps quoting the "definition" of music. The issue is I refuse to think narrow minded, musice is more than a defintion. Music FOREMOST is expression, and art. The individuals are using definitions designed to describe their favorite type of music, lets face it alot of people who don't like rap never listened to it, proven .By the oppositions "generic" reasons for saying rap isn't music. Music that is given a fixed definition is not music at all end of.Discussion."

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/foru...y-Music?page=5

"rap and everyone that listens to it, but to show that it simply does not fit the definition of music. There is no melody, no singing, no instruments, etc. The only instrument-like sounds form a beat, and that just doesn't cut it. Talking is not singing as any elementary school music teacher will point out. And yea, the subject matter being 90% about crime, drugs, and bitches does not help rap's case. You can be entertained by it all you want, but don't try to pass it off a music."

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/i...8142345AAkIJGJ

'My rule of thumb is if it can't be played on a piano and still be recognizable, it's not music. Regardless of what you think of the lyrics, it's still clearly just words. There's no melody of any kind. If you read a book out loud to a beat, you wouldn't consider that music right?

As someone said, sometimes it's accompanied with music but rap itself is definitely not music."

http://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com...4901090&page=4


But I see the business logic behind Macca's partnership with a younger hotter artist.

wiki_
'Kanye Omari West ( June 8, 1977) is an American rapper, songwriter, record producer, director, entrepreneur, and fashion designer."

Notice they did not say 'musician"!

[John Flynn]

As mentioned previously, I am an old guy and not much of a rap fan, although there is some of it I like. However, i will come to rap's defense as being "music." Music is a combination of lots of things, including melody, harmony, rhythm, lyrics, chords, etc. But it does not have to be all of them. Some religious chanting is open meter and therefore devoid of rhythm. Some music does not have harmony or chords. Some music does not have lyrics. But it is still music.

Arguably the earliest music made by man was rhythm (drums, hand clapping, foot stomping, etc.) and vocal interpretations of natural sounds. It was probably devoid of melody and harmony. It may have been tonal, but it may also have included non-tonal grunting and other vocalizing. But it was still considered early music. I see rap as kind of a dichotomy of modern urban experience combined with a return to music's earliest roots. It is music with everything but the rhythm and the lyrics stripped away. As for the sampling, there was rap before sampling and it is not only rappers who do sampling. It does not define the genre.

[LongBlackVeil]

But I see the business logic behind Macca's partnership with a younger hotter artist.

Wait whos Macca? is that some other new age rapper?

Really im suprised Kanye knows who McCartney is. I wonder if he really wanted to do this, or is it a decision made by someone else.

I agree about McCartney being WAYYY past his prime. He hasnt done anything even remotely great in a long long time. Grammys and filling up gigs dont mean much. If he wasnt a former Beatle, and it was based solely on his current output, neither of those would be happening for him

[journeybear]

He never surpassed "Hard Day's Night".

But but but "Yesterday" has been covered about 2500 times....that ain't hay.

Also, "A Hard Day's Night" was a John song.

That's the band he was in before Wings.

I've seen this elsewhere before. But it has more resonance, and hurts more, when it's a personal anecdote.

When I was a teen listening to Clapton, Zep, etc. I really had no idea about Robert Johnson, Howling Wolf. etc.

Same with me, too - at first. But I looked them up. I dug deeper. I wanted to find out where this music came from. I wanted to get to the source. I wanted to find the wellspring of inspiration that flowed through this fascinating music and fed its proponents and practitioners. I used to spend hours in our local record store reading liner notes, looking for clues and connections. I don't know how - I must have gone to the library - but I learned about the men whose names these were: McKinley Morganfield, Chester Burnett, Ellis McDaniels, and more. (That's Muddy Waters, Howlin' Wolf, and Bo Diddley - ICYDK.) I looked up the lyrics whenever I could, learning what they were and how they were changed by rockers, finding out that some of the songs I loved ("Crossroads," for examples) were put together from two different Robert Johnson songs. All this discovery and learning was fueled by a curiosity that wouldn't let me go, wouldn't leave me alone, until I could satisfy it - with knowledge and understanding.

I don't remember how I accomplished this, back in the days before the internet and wikipedia. I must have gone to the library, because I didn't buy any books about this. Or maybe I asked people, and then verified what I was told, because I had to know the truth, and not depend on hearsay. It took some doing, it wasn't easy, but I had to know, and found ways to learn and sources from which to learn. I must have yearned for an easier, quicker way, a means of finding information with the ease of the push of a button and at the speed of light. But there was nothing like that, and so much I wanted to know, so I used whatever resources existed at the time.

Nowadays, it is so easy to get a quick answer to a question, I wonder whether curiosity even exists on this level anymore. People can put a couple of words into a search engine and find what they want in seconds. This has led to a mindset, an attitude, a habit, a cultural consensus, in which one doesn't need to actually know anything, one just needs to know how to find it. I've gotten pretty good at this myself, but half the time I go to wikipedia it's to confirm what I already know, not to actually discover something or learn something. Half the rest of the time I'm just checking spelling or determining the actual date or definition for a datum already (mostly) in my memory bank. But I think many, if not most, people growing up in the computer age, in which this ease of information gathering is a given, accept what they find in the process unquestioningly. I think they think its veracity doesn't matter, and to them "wikipedia says" and "the truth is" are equivalent.

It seems as if information being made so readily available has devalued it. And it devolves to a point at which apathy creeps in and an indifferent attitude assumes control. "Oh, so this old white dude, Paul McWhatever, used to be in some band or something. Whatever. He don't look hip. He's as old as my grandpa." It seems as though only the most current occurrences are what matters, and where they originated doesn't. The present was built upon the past, and even if we don't see it, or hear it, or feel it, it's real. It's here, there, and everywhere. (Another John song.) And it's worthwhile learning, and digging deeper, and finding the source of what intrigues one. When someone says "Got a good reason for taking the easy way out" (finally, a Paul song - I think), there should really be a reason, beyond wanting the easy way.

[JeffD]

I think the whole thing is a hoax. Yea there may in fact be folks that ignorant but I think the tweet thing is made up, to tweek old guys.

[Bertram Henze]

Also, "A Hard Day's Night" was a John song.

I didn't say Paul composed it, just that he never surpassed it
The one of his own songs he never surpassed either was Live and Let Die.

[Tobin]

Personally, I think Sir Paul has to be at a low point in his career to partner up with someone like Kanye West who is way, way below his station (musically speaking). I can't believe he's doing it because it would be musically rewarding to him. It seems like a desperate attempt to reclaim some level of notoriety by hitching his wagon to someone who is popular in contemporary circles. If this doesn't work, he may be relegated to singing on infomercials for prescription medications or something.

As mentioned previously, I am an old guy and not much of a rap fan, although there is some of it I like. However, i will come to rap's defense as being "music." Music is a combination of lots of things, including melody, harmony, rhythm, lyrics, chords, etc. But it does not have to be all of them. Some religious chanting is open meter and therefore devoid of rhythm. Some music does not have harmony or chords. Some music does not have lyrics. But it is still music.

I just don't see how rhythm and lyrics by themselves can make something music. As mentioned by someone else, when we put words to a meter, we call it poetry. Not music. Rap, at its core, is really just poetry with a beat. To be music, it really has to have notes involved somehow. Granted, many rap songs do have music as the background, so perhaps it should be considered a hybrid form of artistry that blends poetry and music.

Many people feel the emotional and physiological effects of rap just like they do with music. It makes them want to bob their heads, tap their feet, dance, or whatever. And that makes them want to put it in the same category as music, but I think it's important to maintain a logical separation. It muddies the definition of "music" to include rap, but it makes much more sense if we consider modern hip-hop or rap or whatever they're calling it nowadays to be a hybrid.

[journeybear]

Paul has done so much, and he probably wants to do everything, so if he wants to try this ... what's to stop him? Fear of a possible hit to his reputation? Please! He's been through so much and suffered so much derogation, I don't think he pays any attention to negative criticism. Nor needs to. I'm not saying this is what he should be doing with his time and talent, nor that the results are going to stand with the rest of his work, but I'm not going to begrudge him for trying to expand his capabilities. It seems he's more open-minded than some people are willing to accept.

If there is anyone on here who honestly believes that any of the Beatles made better music during their solo careers than when they were together, raise your hand..

Raising my hand here. (Damn! no such smiley.) Nearly everything on "All Things Must Pass," much of "Double Fantasy," much of "Band On The Run," "Maybe I'm Amazed," the list goes on. Even "Back Off Boogaloo" is better than a bunch of Beatles songs. There were songs on albums I would almost always skip over, like "Yes It Is" and "Baby's In Black." "Piggies?" Really? They weren't uniformly brilliant, nor is the output of the former Beatles uniformly dull. Nonsense.

McCartney puts out music all the time that is pretty darned good. It isn't encased in amber with a 1960s date, viewed through rose-colored glasses, but it's still good. It's unreasonable to expect people to continue to produce music that hasn't evolved when they themselves have evolved from where and what they were in their younger days. It's OK for him to perform "I Saw Her Standing There" - it's a kick-ass dance song with a killer bass line and an irresistible groove - but he can't, or shouldn't, write a song about coming on to a 17-year-old girl at age 70. It would be, ah, inappropriate.

[tree]

If he had quit writing and recording music 45 years ago, I would have a lot more respect for him.

I don't follow . . . but that's okay. It seems like you're saying you would have more respect for him if he did actually "rest on his laurels".

I don't understand faulting him for following his calling, regardless of what you think of his body of work since 1970. In my opinion, it was the collaboration that made the work he participated in pre-1970 so much greater than the sum of its parts. There's not a single collaborator from that work who ever measured up to the extraordinarily high bar set by the Beatles.

There is no accounting for taste, which is what this is basically about.

McCartney has been commercially successful, by any stretch of the imagination, over his entire career - why would anyone quit trying to succeed at making a living? If people continue to consume his output, and he likes what he's doing enough that he can continue to stand up in front of them and sing it and make a good living, isn't that the point of being a professional musician? Music isn't athletics, where age quickly slows the body and forces retirement.

With few exceptions, I'm not particularly fond of most of his post-Beatles stuff, but I have no doubt that his pre-1970 collaborative work will stand as long as humans like melody and harmony.

[jaycat]

OK, I'll give you Maybe I'm Amazed. As for Yes It Is, give it another listen, especially the bridge.

. . . It's here, there, and everywhere. (Another John song.) . . . "Got a good reason for taking the easy way out" (finally, a Paul song - I think). . . .

I think you may have those the wrong way around.

I don't listen to rap but have nothing against it. There was a kid rockin' out on the subway this morning, listening on his earbuds, and I thought, more power to him, that's how music is supposed to make you feel.

[jaycat]

I don't follow . . . but that's okay. It seems like you're saying you would have more respect for him if he did actually "rest on his laurels".

Perhaps a poor choice of words. What I meant was better expressed by LongBlackVeil above: "He hasnt done anything even remotely great in a long long time. Grammys and filling up gigs dont mean much. If he wasnt a former Beatle, and it was based solely on his current output, neither of those would be happening for him"

[Scott Tichenor]

I think the whole thing is a hoax. Yea there may in fact be folks that ignorant but I think the tweet thing is made up, to tweek old guys.

My take exactly. Throw out a few pieces of rotting bait for the internet and it delivers back more free marketing that can possibly be purchased. Creators giddy with glee. In spades. Mandolin Cafe Forum members happily contributing to the cause.

The internet is so easy to manipulate if you understand how it works. I look at this like, "wow, some dumb people were discovered on the internet."

Really. I mean who saw THAT coming???

[journeybear]

OK, I'll give you Maybe I'm Amazed. As for Yes It Is, give it another listen, especially the bridge.

It may be I was young and excitable, and had no interest in slower 3/4 or 6/8 songs. But the point I'm making is that not all of their songs were great. On nearly every album there were songs I would skip over, and still do. And that all blanket statements are false.

I think you may have those the wrong way around.

Yah. Oops! I remembered reading somewhere that it was John's song, and thinking that was strange, because it sounded so Paul.

[tree]

I agree about McCartney being WAYYY past his prime.

He hasnt done anything even remotely great in a long long time.

Grammys and filling up gigs dont mean much.

If he wasnt a former Beatle, and it was based solely on his current output, neither of those would be happening for him

1. Ouch. He's 72 years old, which seems in and of itself reason to cut the guy a little slack.

2. Matter of taste/opinion, but I happen to agree.

3. Grammies and filling up gigs don't mean much unless you're the one getting the Grammy and filling up the stadiums. That's pretty much the definition of commercial success, which, correct me if I'm wrong, is what professional musicians aspire to.

4. But he IS a former Beatle, so this is moot. Paul McCartney can't be separated from the Beatles. You don't have to like his post-Beatles career, but you can't deny that he's a successful professional musician, and that in and of itself is an accomplishment.

[Steve Ostrander]

Is he the guy from Wings?

[LongBlackVeil]

i think this video, from 1:14 on, pretty much sums up how Paul McCartney puts together songs, and how, sort of vapid it all really is. I just think its all a little cheesey and contrived. It doesnt have any honesty in it. This is how all of his recent work seems to me, ALL of it. Its almost like hes doing a parody of himself, but sadly, hes not.

I dont ask that his new work be as great as his old stuff. I just ask that it be honest, otherwise its no better than Kanye Wests music

But yes, hes no doubt successful, cant take that away from him...



*sorry for the distasteful title of the video, if i need to take it down i will

[John Flynn]

I just saw where McCartney's 2013 album "New" got to #3 both on Billboard and the UK list. Some artists would kill to get that once in their careers. Did he get the opportunity to do the album because he was a Beatle? Probably. Did it is sell because he was a Beatle? You'd have to assume he has such a loyal fan base that they would buy anything he puts out "45 years after he did his best work." I don't think that's true, but even if it is, does it really matter?

[Jacob]

"Not to know what happened before you were born is to be a child forever.
For what is the time of a man, except it be interwoven with that memory of ancient things of a superior age?" - Cicero