McCartney new song on advert...WHO CARES?

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 8:21 am

Greasers vs. hippies, eh?

You can handle 'em, Dane...you were the scourge of McMurdo!!!

wayang · Post by **wayang** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 8:49 am

Greasers I can handle...Yuppies, for lack of a better term, are a bit more difficult for me. A whole new generation raised on Mozart in the crib and Silly Love Songs from kindergarten on scares me...a lot. What are you gonna tell these kids when they finally do get hold of your copy of the White Album and want to know who the song Piggies is about? "Oh, don't pay any attention to that nonsense...that's was way back before we stopped worrying and learned to love The Bomb..."

revolver323 · Post by **revolver323** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 9:19 am

I don't wear Dockers or Nike baseball hats. I did own and wear a buckskin jacket. I drive a Toyota. I always wanted a Mercedes 350SL. I haven't bought much of Mac's music lately. I don't have enough money to invest in anything except my kid's college fund, but that'd probably be higher if I did go with Fidelity. I know what Piggies is about. I know what Blackbird ISN'T about. I don't think attempting to write popular songs is dumbing down. Nor was it ever, whether they were being written by Verdi, Mozart, Gershwin, Springsteen or whoever the Coldplay guy is. I worry that my 16-year-old kid will be left with a world bereft of oil because many in his parents' generation farted it all away in SUVs. I've never stopped worrying. I've never loved the Bomb. I'm a live and let live (not live and let die) kind of guy. It really doesn't bother me too much what anyone thinks. And it doesn't bother me to tell everyone what I think. Wait ... You don't think MPL could mean McCartney Productions Limited, do you? Geez, that changes everything.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 9:28 am

The Coldplay guy is the one who's in Cruise's closet. With Tom.

Isn't he?

wayang · Post by **wayang** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 9:46 am

Popular doesn't necessarily mean stupid...but stupid almost always means popular. It's just a numbers game, really. Mencken said "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public." How right he was and how little things have changed. I just don't understand why a person who's responsible for some of the best songs ever written can't seem to get it back together...and excusing that kind of sub-par performance by saying 'he's got a right to make as much money as he can' doesn't cut it. That kind of **** explains Exxon executives, but I don't think it's legit in a discussion of art and culture...especially when the artist in question couldn't spend the money he already has if he worked at it day and night for the rest of his life.

Unless you want to say "Hey, lay off him...he's an old guy who's getting senile...no wonder he can't get it up anymore." That I wouldn't argue with, but I don't get the impression that's what's being said.

MPL could just as easily mean "My Pile's Larger"...Geez, that changes nothing. The world is increasingly bereft of things, many of them more important than oil...

revolver323 · Post by **revolver323** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 10:22 am

Bereft of things. Like a sense of humor ? But seriously folks, I'll agree that many things are more important than oil. But the lack of cheap, easily available fossil fuel eventually will bring down not only America but most of the rest of the world as well. It's gonna get ugly real fast. Then all this will seem petty. (Not Tom).

wayang · Post by **wayang** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 10:44 am

Agreed, Dave...but how about this? How about embracing things, culturally even more than materially, that aren't and never were 'cheap and easily available'?

Besides, petroleum could only be called easily available from behind a mahogany desk. And it never was cheap, either, if you attach a dollar amount to all that spilled blood...

It's already been ugly for a long time, and most of 'all this' does indeed seem petty. (Maybe not Tom, but Richard for sure...)

shamustwin · Post by **shamustwin** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 11:14 am

Paul said he's recently quit pot. In the '80's, people were blaming his pot habit for his quality of music. Maybe his next CD will be a pot-free CD and we'll see!
I like what I've heard of his new one. I'm not expecting Revolver. Lennon didn't have a chance to get old, and his solo albums were lousy. Hate me now.

nattiep · Post by **nattiep** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 12:45 pm

I like Lennon's first two solo albums. The rest are garbage to me. Some of Paul's stuff is also kinda ******. "Pipes of Peace" is bad (as everyone knows) and McCartney 2 has about 2 songs I like. So I don't hate you Jerry. I agree about John's solo stuff.

wayang · Post by **wayang** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 6:07 am

A 'pot-free' CD, eh? Man...I wonder what Sgt. Pepper's woulda sounded like if it had been 'pot-free'...not to mention hundreds of other great and visionary recordings by too many artists to list here. People in the '80's were blaming all kinds of things on all kinds of other things...we called it 'swinging to the right'...

I blame Paul's intellectual collapse on big piles of money, myself...that particular substance will tweak a human brain out faster and further than any amount of pot smoking can prevent...

For god's sake, the writing of the U.S. Constitution wasn't 'pot-free'. It ain't what Paul's been pulling into his lungs that's the problem...it's the cheezy **** he's been pushing out of them.

revolver323 · Post by **revolver323** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 10:39 am

I'm just wondering how many of us have talked with Paul sufficiently to be speculating on his "intellectual collapse." Just wondering, that's all.

wayang · Post by **wayang** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 12:08 pm

Ok...'artistic' intellectual collapse. I'm sure he can still balance his checkbook, if that's what you mean...

Do you think it more fair to speculate as to how he could smoke pot for years with the Beatles with admirable artistic results, and then suddenly (and for the next three decades) have the same substance render him incapable of anything near his earlier work? That's utterly ridiculous...unless he got hold of some Periquot-sprayed schwag...

Scastles · Post by **Scastles** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 12:38 pm

The only lyrically significant song McCartney ever wrote with some depth, beyond his usual fluff and paltry lyrics, was 'Eleanor Rigby' and I'm not even sure he wasn't without help on it either. Musically, not lyrically, he put out some good 'pop' tunes with the Beatles. Past tense.

Great talent? Yeah. A perfect fourth for the Beatles? Yeah. Shallow? Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Sucking up everything now for what he can get out of it? Without a doubt.

McCartney has generally always written and sounded like he looks. Cutesy.
Just my opinion.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 1:05 pm

I tend towards Stan's and Dane's take on this. Stan puts it well.

Eleanor Rigby is a sort of an Edward Gorey-cum-Hallmark vision, and I don't find it very deep at all considered in that perspective.

And McCartney looked "cutesy", once upon a time. He has not aged well, unfortunately. But he is very energetic...

shamustwin · Post by **shamustwin** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 1:31 pm

Wow.
Well then, who else can we beat up upon?
Dang that Pete Townshend for not writing another Behind Blue Eyes! And he's gone bald! What a jerk.

P.S. thanks for the tip, Dane. Next time I put out a CD I'll be sure to record it under the influence. Must be why I don't like my last one.