linclink wrote:I'd just point out that you have opinions & not a monopoly on "facts" mi amigo. Just because you "feel" them doesn't turn them into facts. So let's start there. As far as lumping Lennon into mainstream guitar rock, and not much else, well that would depend largely on what your definition of "mainstream" is, and that, once again would be a matter of subjective opinion, not "fact".
Also Lennon was wildly inconsistent in his views on anything in any given interview (not unlike the great Neil Young in this respect) & he was fairly well aware of that. So he might have been down on some things one minute, & then very pleased with them the next. He was vast & contained contradictions...like in the Whitman poem. I think he was somewhat paranoid about Macca actually consciously undermining him in any real severe fashion, but that said...he was getting a hell of a lot of heat from all corners & on many levels for lots of his coloring outside the lines in life, and...McCartney was certainly arguably egocentric in the studio, & so on.... As far as Lennon's solo career I simply don't agree with you. There are others on here who don't, and have been pretty eloquent about it as well. As far as many of your examples of Macca's experimental solo efforts- Loop & Morse Moose, I think you've chosen cuts that I feel are pretty subpar, period. Neither of our feelings by the way is a fact, they are opinions and that is all. There are no shortage of critics who pigeon hole McCartney as being hyper conservative, and mainstream to a heavy fault. I don't share this opinion, but simply feel that your case is overstated is all. I won't bother to point out to you that you are "wrong" about things because you "feel" some other way than the "facts" I have presented here or elsewhere. Because, as I said, subjective opinions about art involve definitions of your field of examination (& those often aren't agreed upon), and are subjective anyway by nature. You can feel however you like about that, but calling your feelings facts doesn't make them that. What it does is reveal the manner in which you approach a dialogue. And if I
were you I might take a moment to reflect on that. Blessings!!
linclink wrote:These guys stated different things at different times,
james1985 wrote:linclink wrote:These guys stated different things at different times,
Exactly, and I think this cuts to the heart of the matter. No Beatle interview/legal writ/song lyric can be taken out of context.
You can't gain a full understanding of what Lennon said in the court case without understanding that relations between the two were at an all-time low. KJust like the 1970 Wenner interview shouldn't be taken, as many wrongly do, as "What John Absolutely Thought About Everything - The Gospel". Just like you can't understand "Many Years From Now" without the context of Macca thinking "***censored***, everyone thinks John was the cool edgy one and I just wrote songs about sheepdogs and meter maids - better set the record straight".
So, to JJS, I dont think the 1971 court case is that great a piece of evidence in an argument as to who was more "experimental", J or P. It is a fact that John said that in his statement. That we know the animosity between the two men, and that John would have not wanted Paul to win the case, casts doubt (in my considered opinion) over the accuracy of that statement.
Crisstti wrote:I think JJS has a good point.
It is strange, let's say, that the beatle that is supposed to be the experimental one complained that Paul was the one who wanted to experiment on his (John's) songs, even considering that as sabotaging. He certainly gives the impression that Paul was more willing to experiment and that much of the experimentation on John's songs might have been because of Paul.
As for changing opinions, we should note that this idea of John was one he kept since the early 70's until his death. He talked about it in the Playboy interview (saying that there was a period when he thought that maybe he was being paranoid). His opinion about it didn't really change much.
As for John liking mainstream guitar rock... I think the problem is with the use of the word "mainstream" (which seems to be a bad word...). John stated that he liked "straight forward rock and roll" (I believe those were his words, someone correct me if I'm wrong). And I would agree that that is mostly what he did in his solo career, in different ways. John didn't release an album as experimental as McCartney II. And his albums didn't have the variety that Paul's did.
Now, we should remember that John said that he liked "straight forward rock and roll" as opposed to the concept albums ideas that Paul liked (not to music that was more experimental), and that he seemed to dislike... though it seems to me that Plastic Ono Band is a concept album, pretty much.
And as for Paul not experimenting until the The Fireman albums... what about McCartney II?. And that one was with his own name. Though I don't think that it has anything to do with the argument that he has released those albums under a pseudonym. It's still the same person doing them, and the argument is about how experimental Paul and John are/were, so... The Fireman is still Paul experimenting.
ahawk66 wrote:Good post, jjs. It illustrates the idea that when you write something, at times you're too close to it to "experiment", but when you're helping with someone else's stuff, you're bringing a new perspective to their style. That's actually why I'd say they were so good as a team. Even something as simple as John telling Paul not to take out the line, "the movement you need is on your shoulder" from "Hey Jude". He could see or hear something in that line that the writer couldn't.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests