MySpace

Dark Waves Painted Me

Mark's Blog
ponderings, pontifications, poems and prose


Mark



Last Updated: 12/16/2009

Send Message
Instant Message
Email to a Friend
Subscribe

Gender: Male
Status: In a Relationship
Age: 90
Sign: Libra

City: Somewhere
State: Illinois
Country: US
Signup Date: 4/10/2006
Saturday, May 09, 2009 

Current mood:  busy
Category: Music

Sir James Paul McCartney MBE on Wikipedia (born 18 June 1942)

Sir James (Paul) and the Mystery Object


Sir Paul - and the Mystery Object

I must say that Paul seems like a pretty decent fellow in this intimate get together. Funny, just as many of us might act when talking about him, he too is still a bit starstruck when talking about Elvis. And how 'bout that? He does a fairly faithful rendition of the Elvis vocal styling.

Just to be clear, the video was the purpose of my blog. Everything below this point is just fun filler. Of course an obvious draw of the video is that we see Paul on an upright bass, which while it was used in 50s rock-and-roll was traditionally a classical or jazz instrument. To see McCartney playing this older style, non-rock-n-roll bass is intriguing to musicians because it is fretless. McCartney, who was a converted guitar player, had no experience on fretless bass at all when he emerged on the international scene as the bass player for the most famous band in the world. On the other hand, of all the individually famous basses that Paul McCartney might want to show off playing, an upright is actually his best choice. And I might add, given the circumstances, it's still remarkable that he seems so at ease playing this instrument. Anyone know why? Clues below amidst the pictures. Of course the irony is that Paul's own violin shaped Hofner bass is a lot more famous than this upright.


I discovered that a fellow by the name of Joel Crow wrote a blog on Paul and his Hofner bass(es). Perhaps this article will appeal to everyone, since there are some unique pictures. But musicians and bass players in particular should find this history within a history to be intriguing. Paul McCartney's Hofner Bass: A History is actually the story both of McCartney's Hofner basses (one of which is missing). Right-click on the pic above and select "Open Link in New Tab" to see that article. If the MySpace link police stop you, here's the actual URL = http://www.geocities.com/joelcrowservo/HofnerBass.html

For musicians mostly, here's another very interesting (supposedly non-technical) article on Paul's bass playing.
The Evolution of Rock Bass Playing McCartney Style

And here's another great read, Paul McCartney interviewed by Tony Bacon for Bass Player Magazine in 1995.
Paul McCartney – Meet The Beatle – Bass Player Magazine

    
paul as a young kid Pictures, Images and Photos    Young Paul Pictures, Images and Photos
The "Leave It to Beaver" era, and an early shot of Paul on acoustic guitar. Was he probably listening to Elvis by the time of this second shot?

very young paul Pictures, Images and Photos
Clearly a pre-Beatles shot, but not sure of his age.

young Paul Pictures, Images and Photos
I wonder if the now-vegetarian animal loving McCartney cringes to look back on himself in a leather jacket and pants. Check out the cool trademark violin shaped bass!

Young paul McCartney Pictures, Images and Photos
Paul was "the cute one," by the way. The Beatles were truly the first example of a celebrity ensemble.  Each Beatle had his own fan club, with some of the girls liking George's fine masculine features and stoic persona and other's attracted to John's roguish look and iconoclastic persona.  Even Ringo had his fans.  Rock bands have emulated this this 60s marketing tactic ever since.  The boy bands of the 80s, 90s, and today are dedfinitely built on the framework of the Beatles, often copying the characters too.  Of course, other rock bands have invented very specific characters.  Kiss comes to mind, and eventually, there's Gwar.  But think back on it and you'll find no examples of this "they're all pop stars" phenomenon in bands of any kind before the 60s. 

Paul young Pictures, Images and Photos

    


Right Click on the Eye and choose "Open Link in New Tab."
(This is a review of a McCartney Box-set/album/DVD that addresses McCartney's image as a Rock-and-Roll Legend, a serious musical artist, and a "not-quite-John-Lennon" figure.


Cameras have caught Paul McCartney with a new hottie, and TYT gets all politically incorrect about it.

Okay, we can't end on that tawdry bit of TYT nonsense. Contrary to the "silly love song" image that McCartney has with lots of people, himself included apparently, he is actually very intrigued still with adventurous music. While none of the Beatles were/are technophiles, it was Paul who stayed late with George Martin back in the day and supposedly played the largest role in getting the overall production right. Paul plays guitar, bass, piano, and drums (full trap set) and he can play any of these instruments and simultaneously sing the song melody (however that might actually contrast with the instrument part). In other words he is actually a very good player, not just a star. He can also veer off from the "pop" mainstream. For the technical stuff today, Paul's new George Martin is an artist known as Youth. The two collaborate as the Firemen.

Right Click on the album cover image above and choose "Open Link in New Tab."
(Once you're on the new page, there’s a button in the center for “Preview All”)

This one's just as strange.

Liverpool Sound Collage
You know the drill. Right click is your friend. But in this case, the New Tab should start playing music automatically.

Also (while we're here), a week or so ago, I got an email from a good music industry friend.
They said it couldn't be done. But it could!!!
My friend wrote that he had heard the tail end of "A Day in the Life" on National Public Radio, and then added, “I'm 'ooked !”


Right Click on the Bass Drum and choose "Open Link in New Tab."
(Once you're on the new page, there’s a button in the center for “Preview All”)
Have Fun.

QUESTIONS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION ~

STONES OR BEATLES?

LENNON OR MCCARTNEY?

YOUR FAVORITE BEATLE?

FAVORITE SOLO CAREER?

EARLY BEATLES OR LATE BEATLES?

FAVE BEATLES TUNE?




My thanks to Edna Cooper for finding the original video



Currently reading:
What Every American Should Know About Who's Really Running the World
By Melissa Rossi
mia

 
Very cool pic's of young Paul. interesting blog, thank you for sharing with us tonight.
 
Posted by mia on Saturday, May 09, 2009 - 1:34 AM
[Reply to this
Mark

 
Yeah, I thought it was very cool after all these years to look back at his early youth. Thanks for dropping by. ~m
 
Posted by Mark on Saturday, May 09, 2009 - 3:27 AM
[Reply to this
Cyndi Dawson (of Dawson/Scott) wordrocker!!

 
I love a stand up bass- always have. We just recorded a new track using the fretless...amazing sound. Of course, the Beatles paved the way for boy bands. I was a huge fan but when Mick Jagger came along...well....he was just SO bad!
 
Posted by Cyndi Dawson (of Dawson/Scott) wordrocker!! on Saturday, May 09, 2009 - 1:39 AM
[Reply to this
Mark

 
So on those Either/Or tests (quickly now - Beatles or the Stones?) you pick "the Stones?" Ha! We'll have discuss this in greater depth at some point. Actually, my blog should have had a question. Maybe I'll add it. The truth is that the boy band reference was planted in that spot after I deleted the original thing I had written about - the Beatles' bad boy phase. When the Beatles were in Germany in the early days they were like a cross between beatniks and rock-n-rollers. Astrid Kirchherr, a German photo artist and big fan of the band shot a bunch of black and white pictures of the band that were later seen as almost a style of its own ~ working-class 60s-beat culture. They even had Beat in their name. That slightly darker more toughened image was really their main vibe right before international fame. The movie "Hard Day's Night" directed by Richard Lester was shot in black and white precisely to carry that "branding" concept forward. Of course that's lace with a lot of humor too. But somebody in the business office, even before HDN was released had figured out to take the Beatles in a much friendlier direction. And it probably suited them better in the end.





The fifth Beatle and his girlfriend Astrid Kirchherr




I thought about detailing a lot of their history and particularly the story of how Paul ended up on bass, but frankly it just seemed too involved. People can read about that stuff though, on the links I provided, if they're interested.



 
Posted by Mark on Saturday, May 09, 2009 - 3:17 AM
[Reply to this
Cyndi Dawson (of Dawson/Scott) wordrocker!!

 
ah! But I already knew all of this...because I was a huge fan of both Beatles and Stones!! I never made a choice. I preferred the Beatles earlier image because it wasn't their managers doing. The suits were an image that was forced on them by their manager/record label, I believe, to present a nicer image feared towards America, not Europe, being the Puritan pricks we were/are. Don't forget that Astrid's boyfriend died of a brain hemorrage right in front of her, basically destroying here for several years when she put the camera down. Imagine the shots she might have gotten in later years!!!
 
Posted by Cyndi Dawson (of Dawson/Scott) wordrocker!! on Saturday, May 09, 2009 - 3:20 PM
[Reply to this
Mark

 
I still wonder how it is, since you are clearly no more than 32 or 33-yo, you can have memories of the Beatles and the Stones. Is your face lying about your age? ;>) I'm completely with you on the coolness of the Beatles early image. I was the only hard-core Beatles fan in my home town of 8-thousand people. I had a Beatles hair cut and I even wore Beatle-boots. Now I've really placed my weathered old self in time, haven't I. (Oh well, I've never claimed to be younger than 88). But while I liked the Astrid Kircherr version of the Beatles, I would also say that I liked the Richard Lester version too. Not completely cool. A little silly too. Or more accurately ~ quirky. After the Beatles quit touring they got control of their image back and I liked all the "suits" they tried on after that. It's all dated crap now, but it was quite intriguing in its day and as with so many things the Beatles set trends not just in specific fashions, but in the whole concept of experimenting with fashion at a mass cultural level. That trend which continues is a huge element of modern society. Of course music had spawned styles before, but not nearly as experimentally ~ built on the notion that ordinary individuals might use fashion as a way of expressing themselves creatively.

As for the Stones, I dug them too, but I must admit that I liked their popular tunes much better than their albums. Looking back, I think the people who really "got" the Stones were probably the people who were also digging the Motown revolution. The Stones I think were much better attuned to the American Detroit sound than were the Beatles or perhaps any other British Invasion band. The Beatles, to the extent that they had "any" influences later in their career, were clearly following white American music much more closely. My one gripe with the Stones was that while I thought their carefully constructed pop tunes were great, I thought their "filler" songs, mostly blues based stuff found only on the albums, was very ho hum. Conversely, what so often John Lennon cynically relegated to Beatles "filler" status would be a career pinnacle for 99 out of 100 bands.

~m


 
Posted by Mark on Saturday, May 09, 2009 - 6:09 PM
[Reply to this
Aaron

 
You may not know this, but I have a love affair with all things Beatles. This didn't disappoint! :D
 
Posted by Aaron on Saturday, May 09, 2009 - 2:38 AM
[Reply to this
Mark

 
Ah yes, I supposed I have noticed that. ;>) I'm glad you were able to swing by tonight. ~m
 
Posted by Mark on Saturday, May 09, 2009 - 3:26 AM
[Reply to this
Shimmer and Shine
Julie Love kindness

 
This was amazing m.... I've never seen this one.
PS you are the king of adjacent subjects... xo
jules
 
Posted by Shimmer and Shine on Saturday, May 09, 2009 - 3:05 AM
[Reply to this
Mark

 
Hey sweetie ~ thanks for dropping by. Look at me doing Music Video Blogs! Where'd I get THAT idea? Yeah, I was just sucked right into seeing McCartney in that venue/format. Sort of a VH1 Storytellers vibe. While I don't spend much time listening to old music, the Beatles never cease to entertain me. ~m
 
Posted by Mark on Saturday, May 09, 2009 - 6:13 PM
[Reply to this
Shimmer and Shine
Julie Love kindness

 
Hah! Funny you the music freak like me finally coming over to the dark side....
Oh, and this was so James Bond.
 
Posted by Shimmer and Shine on Thursday, May 14, 2009 - 4:47 AM
[Reply to this
-slj

 
It's me catching up on the week's reading!

I watched this TV concert (I forgot where, but it was before I left the US). What a cool intimate concert with him.

Those circumstances you mentioned...is it because Paul plays his bass as a "South Paw?" I am about to test my experiment along Paul's lines: It became a question whether I was a lefty forced to be a righty. All my life in "air guitar" I mirrored the guiatr players, and picked up guitars as if they should be played lefty. I bear all my physical stress (lifting and endurance work) with my left hand, and all the super fine work with my right. I remained convinced that of all the things in guitar or bass playing, fingering the frets is something my left hand would not naturally do. I bought a left handed bass (ultra cheap!), and want to do the same for the guitar. Even with my learning curve, it feels natural, so I'm soing with it!
 
Posted by -slj on Saturday, May 09, 2009 - 4:36 AM
[Reply to this
Mark

 
Yep, you got it. Paul's a lefty. So a stand up bass relieves him of the usual awkwardness of how to hold the thing. I don't think Paul would be too anxious to try playing John Entwistle's bass, whether he regards it as famous or not. He'd have to play it upside down. That said, if you look closely the Bill Black's upright bass in the video you'll see that it's not been converted. So McCartney is actually playing bass backwards in the above scene. He HAS done this before and early on. Another chap who had to learn his guitar playing forward and backwards, so to speak, was a modestly talented fellow out of Seattle by the name of Hendrix. Makes me wonder if great music is more right-brained than we usually think. By the way, in one of those interviews/articles I linked, McCartney does talk about why he wants to play left-handed (and therefore why you may want to play right-handed). He says the non-fingering hand is what makes the rhythm happen, and doing that with the subordinate hand is too awkward. I agree that it seems odd that we finger with our subordinate hand, but it might seem more logical if we said we pick and strum with our dominant hand. Then fingering is can almost be seen as holding something in place so you can do stuff to it with your dominant hand. Just thought I'd toss all that out there for ya. Thanks for droppin' by.

~m



 
Posted by Mark on Saturday, May 09, 2009 - 5:36 AM
[Reply to this
Colleen
Colleen Sperry

 
very interesting blog! love the pics!! very cool! :)
 
Posted by Colleen on Saturday, May 09, 2009 - 6:28 AM
[Reply to this
Mark

 
Hi Colleen, thanks for dropping by and for diggin' the effort. :>)
 
Posted by Mark on Saturday, May 09, 2009 - 6:19 PM
[Reply to this
B-u-x

 
See this is why I am SO proud of my hometown!

Great blog Mark....

Bux x
 
Posted by B-u-x on Saturday, May 09, 2009 - 2:01 PM
[Reply to this
Mark

 

Hey there, So does that mean you're a "Scouser?"








 
Posted by Mark on Sunday, May 10, 2009 - 6:12 AM
[Reply to this
B-u-x

 
Too right! I'm a certified Liver Bird born and bred! Fantastic images in your comment btw, made me feel very homesick. Have you ever been there? I'm very impressed that you even know what a 'scouser' is Mark.

Bux x
 
Posted by B-u-x on Sunday, May 10, 2009 - 4:37 PM
[Reply to this
Mark

 
Hi Bux, A Liver Bird ~ now see I didn't know THAT term. No, I've never been there. I'm really very limited in my British Isles knowledge. I've been to London I think four times, all on business, which meant that I was whisked away to some dungeon of a place where music or dialog was recorded; I fix their machines or I fixed their attitudes, or they fixed mine or whatever, and then I left. Actually on two of those occasions I drove over to Cardiff Wales for a day at the TV network. So looking out the window of the car along the way, I was able to see some English countryside. Not exactly the charming UK experience I was looking for. And then on two of my trips I had at least one evening where I stayed at the home of a British business associate. That was perhaps the most Englishness I got. Ha!

But I do plan to get to the British Isles and do England, Scotland and Ireland in one big one of these days. And of course, being a Beatles junkie, I will surely go see the Beatles sights in Liverpool. Anything else to recommend as a must see?

~m



 
Posted by Mark on Monday, May 11, 2009 - 11:16 PM
[Reply to this
Wayfaring Panda

 
Very interesting and stimulating blog - thanks for all those links. I'm wondering if the strum/pluck hand has more strength work to do as it has to push the strings into vibration against their natural tendency to stasis, while by contrast the fretting hand needs less strength as it has a helpful fingerboard to press against, which presumably gives it more leverage. I don't know if it's relevant, but in some sports this applies too. Eg, a right-handed boxer does the precision work with his left jab, and uses the right hand for brute force. The same applies to a batsman in cricket - a right-hander stands with his left shoulder facing the ball, his right hand holds the bottom of the bat-handle, providing thrust, and his left hand holds the top of the handle to provide angle, direction and control.

But all this takes me to the other point about old guitars (of the quality affordable to art students in post-War Liverpool) - isn't it interesting how much great art is created when the instruments are limited? Think of all those Renaissance painters working in poor light with home made paint, or the poor sods who made feature films before the advent of computerised editing. I know that old guitars are revered for their tone (correctly), but they weren't always the most playable! Probably less of a point once bands had made it big, but certainly on the way up.

PS, is his Elvis acoustic an arch-top with f-holes? May be the shadow, but it looks that way.

PPS, I was named after this guy.
 
Posted by Wayfaring Panda on Saturday, May 09, 2009 - 3:04 PM
[Reply to this
Mark

 
Did you get the J part too? Or just the P? I think your theory is actually probably as good as McCartney's. I liked the left jabs, followed by a right uppercut analogy. The dominant hand is needed for the bigger stronger movements. I also liked what McCartney had theorized about the dominant hand being much more confident with rhythms. This was particularly appealing to me since I do play guitar and I simply cannot imagine strumming the rhythm with my left hand. But then It also occurs to me that drummers must coordinate often fairly independent rhythms in the left hand, the right hand, the left foot, and the right foot. In the case of McCartney, Don Henley, and Phil Collins, there's the rhythm of the vocals sprinkled on top. So it seems that McCartney could probably strum just fine in either hand if it was only a question of rhythm.

I can't remember what your musical background is but you are very right about limited instruments. Too much too work with - too many choices to make - can be the death sentence for music making. Sometimes scaling back is the great leap forward. I love recording and production and a cool electric guitar with lots of effects and drums and congas and on and on, but all of it can be mightily distracting. For my purposes, almost all of my composing and practicing is done on an acoustic guitar. Simple and sweet. No pluggin' in to get working. I've also seen a parallel with studio technology. Sometime too much gear will send a band noodling themselves into oblivion. For my purposes, I have done some of my most creative stuff by just focusing on mastering one thing at a time and then milking that until I was either done with it or so good at it that I could easily fold into sessions with other stuff available.

Yes, the bass is a hollow arch-top body style with f holes. Basically it's a big fat violin. Or maybe a big fat viola, I'm not sure. I don't think these instruments are "called" arch-top though as that is the term for a guitar that has elements of the violin/viola design as well. I should bring over my bass player friend and he can set me straight if any of this is bollocks. I see if I can lure him here.

Thanks for your comments Paul. Pleasure visiting.

~m

 
Posted by Mark on Sunday, May 10, 2009 - 6:43 AM
[Reply to this
Wayfaring Panda

 
No, just the P part! He was my sister's favourite Beatle. Thank goodness she didn't like Ringo ... My musical background is purely amateur - I pingle around on guitar, but nothing like the serious level you're at. It's more like an interesting adventure (what happens if I do this ...?) than an effort to make coherent music that other people could listen to. It's fascinating hearing your insider thoughts and observations on all this, especially that point about technology. And I'm glad I'm not the only one who marvels at what drummers can do!

On the archtop, I was thinking more of the one in the still photo, next to the picture of McCartney as a little boy. It's an acoustic guitar of some sort, and it certainly appears to have f-holes. It just seemed curious, again historically, since we tend to think of those now as jazz instruments. How funny seeing famous people as kids, too, you wonder if they have any inkling of what's to come ...
 
Posted by Wayfaring Panda on Sunday, May 10, 2009 - 1:23 PM
[Reply to this
Mark

 
Hey there Ringo! Hmmm.... yeah I see your point. That would not have worked out as well for you.

You've got the Eagle Eye Mr. Panda. I do think that's a f-hole as you conjectured. And there appears to be no round hole. And now I see that it has the raised bridge with a "nut" below it for tying off the strings (if nut's what they call that - doesn't look like it uses pegs). I had looked at that picture several times and thought the guitar looked strange, but since he was holding it as a lefty and the pic was shadowy, I didn't bother to follow my eyes. I wonder if he had this strange guitar because it was the only thing he could find that was strung left handed. It really doesn't appear to have much of an arch top either which makes me wonder if it was a bit of novelty guitar, perhaps made by an off brand. This is beyond my knowledge of old guitars and particularly arch-tops.

As for pingling, I'm right there with you man. If I was great musician, I'd be doin' it, believe me. I was gifted with more appreciation than raw talent. My greatest weakness is my penchant for experimentation as opposed to rigorous practice and the learning of other people's songs. I do think I have talent as a composer though. That's the only area where I'm good enough to do something beyond amateur. Of course I'm not Hans Zimmer or David Newman, but maybe I could be if I could find a way to do it full time.

I have a 1968 Lyle acoustic by the way. Nothing special but I love it.
~m

 
Posted by Mark on Sunday, May 10, 2009 - 3:58 PM
[Reply to this
♥buttmuffin♥

 
I ♥ Paul.. thanks Markus!!
 
Posted by ♥buttmuffin♥ on Saturday, May 09, 2009 - 3:40 PM
[Reply to this
Mark

 
Hey world traveler! Did you go to his house in Liverpool? (I know you didn't - but when you go back you'll have to add that). Thanks for taking time away from your busy Facebook schedule to visit. ;>) When's that blog of yours going to fire back up again? You do know I've been left in bed with Donna now for months. I'm mean it's great and all, but didn't you have some Thelma and Louising to do? ~m
 
Posted by Mark on Sunday, May 10, 2009 - 6:48 AM
[Reply to this
♥buttmuffin♥

 
That is definitely on my to-do list mark.. next time I go back I am taking Alex and she is OBSESSED with the Beatles at the moment so she wants to visit Abbey Road and Liverpool and all that sort of thing...
BTW my favorite Beatles song changes from day to day but usually I say it is "Because" ...

UGH you had to GO THERE didn't you?? LOL.. well.... I have not felt inspired Mark...and several of the people in the movie (and several people I had planned to include in the storyline) are no longer my friends... and I just don't know how to proceed and not sure if I should proceed with these characaters of people I am no longer speaking with.. it feels wrong to do that. I may have to just start over.. .. lol
 
Posted by ♥buttmuffin♥ on Sunday, May 10, 2009 - 3:48 PM
[Reply to this
Profile Closed

 
:0)
 
Posted by Profile Closed on Sunday, May 10, 2009 - 4:58 PM
[Reply to this
Mark

 
:>) . . . . I like your n0se.
 
Posted by Mark on Monday, May 11, 2009 - 11:17 PM
[Reply to this
JIM MCDOWELL
Jim McDowell

 
Mark,

Thanks for sharing, very cool blog, looks like it was quite a bit of work. Paul has had that bass (the upright) for some time, I think it's one of those prize possesions cuz it turns up alot candidly in the background.

Paul is also one of those amazing kinda guys that did'nt get where he got by studying and practicing technique, he just did it. I find it interesting that his complete lack of technique used on the electric transfered right to the upright. I use him as an example all the time to students when I have to bang on them about hand position. I always say that there are plenty of guys who play great without the benefit of that kind of study, but unless you have their kind of talent you better get your arm up and your thumb behind.

Another P.M. trivia; He credits his creative bass lines throughout the Beatle era with the primitive recording techniques of the day (and I remember them well). Since the bass is the first thing to degrade when ping ponging tracks it is usually the last thing to get tracked. This gives the bass player plenty of time to listen to the tune and figure out what would be cool to play.

On the ease of playing the Hoffner being one of Pauls reasons for sticking with it so long, what a swing from that to the Rickenbacker he played with Wings. Those things are absolute pigs to play. I can safely say so having owned several myself.

Sorry if I rambled, Thanks again,

Jim

 
Posted by JIM MCDOWELL on Tuesday, May 12, 2009 - 6:18 AM
[Reply to this
Copernicus

 
Mark, I could write volumes on this so I can't even really begin but I have so I'll make it short. I love the Beatles! When I was a wee lad of even 6 I saw them on Ed Sullivan at my grandmother's on a Sunday night. We heard paperback writer on the way home one night; need I say more. Ok, I will. I remember the Christmas the White Album came out and me and my two older brothers played it over and over and over............. I was listenting to Sgt Pepper and Magical Mystery Tour when other kids thought I was nuts. Paul's Bass. I thought it was the coolest thing ever when a kid and had never seen a violin shaped bass until Paul. Beatles or Stones? I thought you could literally judge a persons intelligence quotient by this question and still do to a degree. Stones: loud, snotty and musically raw. Beatles: Wonderfully eclectic, brilliant, excellent compositions. Remember the first time you heard Honey Pie on the white album. I was transported to the roaring twenties and I loved that old music. Every band that has come since has incorporated a bit of the Beatles in their music whether they know it or not. Rap. Well I won't even go there since it is not music but angst disguised as music. Ice picks in the eye sockets for me to even hear it;-)

I loved all of them in some way or other and don't have time to go into it here. I've lately been listening to George's All things Must Pass album again. I had that too as a child and some of it was boring jam sessions but some of the main album has some remarkable tunes on it. I still love them to this day. John, what can I say? He was the Beatles' version of Genesis' Peter Gabriel. Paul was always more showtunes, love songs. But love them both. Ringo was lovable but goofy but actually was a better drummer than he was ever given credit for. I mean he's no Carl Palmer of ELP or anything but he never set out to do that.

Yes I Love The Beatles. They invented themselves and were light years ahead of anything then and to this day in my opinion;-)









 
Posted by Copernicus on Tuesday, May 12, 2009 - 1:47 PM
[Reply to this
Mark

 
First let me throw out my thoughts on the Stones v Beatles. I do think there was a cultural dichotomy in views of these two bands. I'm copying this next paragraph from elsewhere, but I think it applies to what you're saying.

As for the Stones, I dug them too, but I must admit that I liked their popular tunes much better than their albums. Looking back, I think the people who really "got" the Stones were probably the people who were also digging the Motown revolution. The Stones I think were much better attuned to the American Detroit sound than were the Beatles or perhaps any other British Invasion band. The Beatles, to the extent that they had "any" influences later in their career, were clearly following white American music much more closely. My one gripe with the Stones was that while I thought their carefully constructed pop tunes were great, I thought their "filler" songs, mostly blues based stuff found only on the albums, were very ho hum. Conversely, what so often John Lennon cynically relegated to Beatles "filler" status would have been a career pinnacle for 99 out of 100 bands.

I also liked what you had to say about what each Beatle brought to the band and the music. I actually mentioned the playing of Ringo and George answering your second comment, but I have one other comment on Ringo. Listen to “Long, Long, Long” on the White Album and consider how that drumming makes the song. This kind of artistry was forgotten for many years in pop. And one last thought on Paul. Listen the song right before “Long, Long, Long” (that would be Helter Skelter). He was not quite in a show tune mood that day. ;>)

~m

 
Posted by Mark on Wednesday, May 13, 2009 - 7:13 PM
[Reply to this
Copernicus

 
Again; same thing, I sometimes go for the jugular but don't really mean it quite as harsh as I sound. I loved some of the Stones songs too, and didn't mean to say that all of it was crap. I have to always try for the laugh, ah, but that's me and I wouldn't be the same if I didn't. You're right, the Beatles just knew what to play and even the filler as you said is amazing. Don't get me Down was a b-side single and it was incredible. Many instances of this. It is fun to listen to the Beatles and I still do quite often.
 
Posted by Copernicus on Wednesday, May 13, 2009 - 10:51 PM
[Reply to this
Copernicus

 
Oh, and one more thing. Paul was an incredible bassist and I used to just go crazy at the way he would move around the fretboard on his axe. almost all bassists after him owe their music to his meandering style. Roger Waters of Pink Floyd is a master of this.
 
Posted by Copernicus on Tuesday, May 12, 2009 - 1:51 PM
[Reply to this
Mark

 
I loved that McCartney's bass style was melodic, but rarely fell into the "walking" style. He didn't just play up and down the scale, and he didn't just play within the triad of the chords played. He actually invented bass lines that worked in counterpoint to the song. A jazz player might completely miss this point as Paul wasn't out to impress with his bass chops. In fact all of the Beatles were masters of "just enough to be perfect." No one was flashy, but neither were they at all hampered by clumsily skills or lack of creativity. There are so many examples of how George pays an 8 or 10 note lead that says more than other guitarists have said after a two minute jam. Ringo plays outside of the the whole backbeat theory all the time. In fact for a long time I really missed the Ringo style drumming from pop. Today's drummers are pretty advanced so not it's so bad, but for the 80s and 90s it was all tinny snare hits on 2 and 4.

~m

.
 
Posted by Mark on Wednesday, May 13, 2009 - 6:51 PM
[Reply to this
J. Floyd King

 
few have had the type of career that McCartney has had nad he has handled it with class and grace through it all. this was a nice homage to one of the great srtists of our time.
 
Posted by J. Floyd King on Tuesday, May 12, 2009 - 11:38 PM
[Reply to this
Mark

 
I agree. Paul has definitely shown some class as the reigning grandfather of Rock (Rock - as opposed to rock-n-rock of the 50s). He is very proud of being a positive influence on the world and that contributes to his grace, I think. A lot of great music flowed from this guy (and his various cohorts). Would be a kick to meet him someday.

~m


 
Posted by Mark on Wednesday, May 13, 2009 - 7:32 PM
[Reply to this
Please delete account!
Delete Me

 
O.K. I am a John Lennon freak.........I sometimes feel sad for Paul...he thrived on John's competition and friendship...mainly they would tell each other threw their music whats up....and when his amazing wife Linda died well it seems he is lost or at times looks like hes thinking only if John was here! My mothers loves Paul....figures....Hey??? Great post...Love& peace, Keely!



Me and my friends seen this movie 13 times when it came out in Theater


 
Posted by Please delete account! on Tuesday, May 12, 2009 - 11:47 PM
[Reply to this
Mark

 
Hey Keely, Interesting insights on Paul. I do think you're probably right that he misses the dynamic that John gave him. They were made from different elements but the resulting chemistry was very right - at least for a time. John had considerable cynicism about "the Beatles" whereas I think Paul and Ringo both still look on it fondly. It's a deep analysis as to why this was, and I don't want to wade too deep. Progressively John realized that he had a voice to say what needed to be said and he was passionate and bold enough to say it. Of course Yoko had much to do with the solo John, even when they weren't together, according to John. Paul remained more "audience driven" and that made him less relevant in retrospect. Paul once tried writing something political in "Give Ireland Back to the Irish." A pretty cool song. But he got endless flack from Northern Ireland protestant Irish, who couldn't figure how he had come to such a silly conclusion. Paul swore off all political songs from thence onward. Paul also made a great comment in one interview where his past with the Beatles was discussed. He said that he saw it as a bubble in time and somehow less than real, but he was very proud of one thing about the Beatles. No matter how much they influenced culture, complained politically, advocated alternative thinking, fought among themselves and whatever else, he felt that they had ALWAYS been remarkably POSITIVE. He said the band never stood for anything but good, and that's indeed how they felt within the band. I always thought, that's pretty amazing. I would hope that if my artistry is ever truly known, that I can say something like that too. ~m



 
Posted by Mark on Wednesday, May 13, 2009 - 6:41 PM
[Reply to this
BellaDonna

 
Both Stones and Beatles! I can't decide. Nor can I choose between Lennon and McCartney. I'm pathetic. Sorry. And just so many favorites: "I Will"? 

Who knows how long I've loved you
You know I love you still
Will I wait a lonely lifetime
If you want me to, I will.

If I ever saw you
I didn't catch your name
But it never really mattered
I will always feel the same.

Love you forever and forever
Love you with all my heart
Love you whenever we're together
Love you when we're apart.

And when at last I find you
Your song will fill the air
Sing it loud so I can hear you
Make it easy to be near you
For the things you do endear you to me
Oh, you know, I will
I will.


 
Posted by BellaDonna on Thursday, May 28, 2009 - 6:04 AM
[Reply to this