The most avant garde?

[redrose]

I think the general opinion is that after John met Yoko he became the 'avant garde' Beatle. But it's a given fact that Paul was the first to become culturally aware and experimental in his tastes in art, music and theatre. In the early 60's he was a guest at the home of his girlfriend Jane Asher, and her family were deep into cultural interests, which Paul absorbed like a sponge. He was the only one of the Beatles to live in London where all the action was, whilst the other three were living in suburbia.

I heard someone say that 'avant garde' was french for rubbish! Or, as George once said 'avant garde a clue!'

What are your thoughts?

love and peace

redrose

[jgkojak]

I think Paul was the first to become interested in the non-Rock n Roll side of recording/experimenting, and certainly in certain artists or philosophers- John has more of a natural inclination towards that, however, and it impacted him much more deeply. I think Paul viewed it for what it was- pop art in a different form, John was searching for an answer.

If Paul doesn't get enough credit, I think its in being the one Beatle who was most grounded in reality and had some sense of how to keep in going. It put him in a tough place, but someone had to do it. If Paul had done nothing, it's doubtful we would have seen much past the White Album.

[Mark Rink]

ok since Macca was so far supieor then John lets give this topic to John

[chris]

it always bugged me a bit that paul always claimed to be the avant garde one. maybe he was...i don't know. but the fact that he always had to claim it...and john never would have...makes paul seem just a wee bit less avant garde.

[jgkojak]

John took it a lot less seriously than he let on- he said at one point that he and Yoko would get in a bag and they'd be in there laughing there arses off like they were teenagers pulling a prank.

And no one is deriding John- I think the issue is what is Avant Garde? Mostly, its Bull-SH*T. What irks Paul, rightly, is that John is given credit for being "experimental" yet he was the one who first came in with the tape loops, he was the one who did Carinval of LIght (two years before Revolution 9)- was it uncool perhaps that his business sense told him not to put out Carnival as a Beatle product? Perhaps.

And did Paul's leadership lead to some poorly thought out projects- yep- both Magical Mystery Tour and Let It Be were disasters.

Sgt Pepper and Abbey Road medley were successes.

But I am pretty darn sure that the Beatles would have ceased to exist after the White Album were Paul not there pushing a next project.

[mr h atom]

yeesh, some of these fans...

jg is spot on: pauls claiming of the a.g. crown has much more to do with the 'i'm not as smarmy as you all always try to make me out to be', 'there's more to me than silly love songs and cuteness' schtick than it is about him claiming to be anything just for the sake of needing to be on top, to be #1

no different than his chagrine at wanting to have his name first on the credits for the songs that actually are (mostly) his..you simply MUST have your head stuck deep in the sand if you do not realize that by not speaking up for himself, all these years, he's added to the legacy of him being just that silly love songs guy..or worse, johns back up...and that's it.

if i'm hard at work, do a thousand things right, and my co-worker uses one of my ideas and, advertantly or inadvertantly, gets all the credit, not just for that one thing, but most (if not all), i'd be a bit chuffed, too.

that being said, jg was accurate, as well , when he said paul "viewed it as pop-art"; he saw it mostly like a new instrument, something to be played with...used to his advantage.

since he still seems interested, i think it also has a bit of a deeper meaning than just a usery one, just not as ...soul searching as johns appeared at times to be.

[chris]

I'm not sure Paul needs to stick up for himself. I know he feels that he needs to. But when it is all said and done, Paul will be remembered for what he is...a damn fine singer, songwriter, multi-instrumentalist, studio innovator and world class melody maker. He has his detractors. Always will. And that's cool. Lots of people thought Lennon went off the deep end after the Beatles split up. And while maybe he cared what others thought about him. He gave the impression that he didn't care. Paul seems to point out some of his accomplishments. And I don't think it's necesary. We know, at least we here at this site, know what he does and how well he does it. He doesn't have to remind me.

I liken it to great athletes. Albert Pujols doesn't have to state how great a ballplayer he is. I know. And if a critic says that he's awesome...but...he isn't a particularly great base runner, he really need not point out that he has (X amount) of stolen bases. You're a hall of famer, don't worry about what your detractors have to say.

I always admired the Beach Boys. But I never really disliked Mike Love until he started stating that the Beach Boys were better than the Beatles because they were together longer.

Just something that rubs me wrong about tooting your own horn.

[jgkojak]

mike Love is a dick. Brian would have released Smile back in '67 if he had just a tiny bit of support and encouragement from Mike.

[mr h atom]

i get that, but...if i were in pauls shoes, i would, in fact, get a little tetchy with all the he's the cute one, he's the 'pop' one..he's the drug bust one...i'd feel a bit perturbed if the general thinking was one of feebleness & silly love songs, when in fact, you're one of the best and life is alot more complex than to be shoe-horned into that.
you know he gets questions about this sort of thing, and he's just offering up his perspective....which, i find, has never been overreactive or self serving, just fairly accurate.

[dylankyra]

Check out the book "The Unknown Paul McCartney" which delves deeply into Paul's musical experimentation.

http://www.amazon.com/Paul-McCartney-Av ... 216&sr=1-1

All the best!