500 Years from now, Paul McCartney will be just as much of a legend as Mozart, Bach and Beethoven. Seriously.
Well that is just simply nonsense. Anyone who agrees with that simply has no clue about the complexity and depth of the music written by those three, especially Bach (meaning Johann Sebastian Bach, I presume).
Paul will be known as one of the Beatles, the greatest pop and rock group of their age. The Beatles will be remembered as a cultural icon, and the creators of some clever and very original pieces, recorded in ground-breaking ways. The only pieces that have any, any chance of still being played or listened to in any way are tracks like Rain, Tomorrow Never Knows, Strawberry Fields, Walrus, Revolution 9. Yeah, yeah, I know what some of you will think and say! But honestly, they are works of genius, in a way that none of Paul's or George's (or Ringo's) songs are.
But Paul as a separate entity? Mentioned in the same breath as Bach, Mozart, Beethoven? Come on, get a hold on reality. Paul McCartney may be the author of what you think are very pleasant, hummable songs. But FIVE centuries of longevity are not built on silly love songs!
I agree, that Mozart, Bach and Beethoven all show extraordinary intellect and talent, which still challenges that of modern composers. But, it has to be remembered that at the time (without hindsight) the music these composers wrote was aimed at a specific audience, much like that of pop*. The audience was very much different, but it is this consistent ideology of audience engagement, which can be seen in any performer, and in any field of music. The Beatles music or sound may not be classed as complex but it certainly contains depth and meaning. This is obvious and, naturally celebrated. Mccartney being a critical figure in the 'four-headed monster' can therefore be honored with such a comment. Songs such as Yesterday, Penny Lane, Eleanor Rigby, Let it be .. etc The above songs all show what you term genius Oh, and the songs you have mentioned, its not like Lennon sat in a white room, cut off from all life, and wrote, played and recorded all by himself...howway, ever recorded yourself? It doesn't work like that. Mccartney input was critical to Lennon (and obviously vica-versa) so Mccartney can, like Lennon, be celebrated.
Mccartney as a seperate entity? Yes, of course! The Beatles are the best at what they do, much like the classical comparison of Mozart, Bach and Beethoven.
* The term pop often troubles me. We all know the interpretation has changed over the decades, but using pop to front a negative view on the actual music is a modern misconception of meaning.
Oh, and the songs you have mentioned, its not like Lennon sat in a white room, cut off from all life, and wrote, played and recorded all by himself...howway, ever recorded yourself? It doesn't work like that. Mccartney input was critical to Lennon (and obviously vica-versa) so Mccartney can, like Lennon, be celebrated.
True, so true. I didn't mean to imply no-one else had any input. But the idea of the songs I quoted was John Lennon's. But without the others and George Martin, and engineers, they would not have been the works they are.
Quoted Text
The Beatles music or sound may not be classed as complex but it certainly contains depth and meaning. This is obvious and, naturally celebrated. Mccartney being a critical figure in the 'four-headed monster' can therefore be honored with such a comment.
But only as a member of the Beatles. That's my point.
Quoted Text
Songs such as Yesterday, Penny Lane, Eleanor Rigby, Let it be .. etc The above songs all show what you term genius
No, not genius. Just good songs. I know it's opinion, but I can't see Penny Lane, Let It Be etc surviving five hundred years. I can barely see it for the Lennon songs I mentioned.
500 years is along time, I must admit after frantically typing, I sat back, and then thought about 500 actual years...slightly hypercritical on my behalf.
But Hey Jude, that has to survive..its an anthem for millions of people.
Interesting. I think THE song of Macca's that might (just might) be remembered is For No One. The perspective from which the singer sings is very interesting. The singer is neither the man nor the woman, but is inside each of their heads.
Some of the twists in the song are unique to a love song. For example, "... all her words of kindness linger on when she no longer needs you". Kindness? What a thing for a pining lover to remember! Her words of kindness! What sort of love and relationship did this couple have?
Virtually no-one knows (outside rabid fans) about For No One. Long may it remain that way, so it remains a superb song (OK work of genius) to be discovered and re-discovered.
I love for no one, one of my personal favourites. I always thought the lines:
She says that long ago she knew someone but now he’s gone She doesn’t need him
was infact:
She says that long ago she knew someone but now he’s gone She doesn’t mean* him
Suggesting an old affair that may be still happening (the line - You stay home, she goes out* - me thinking goes out to another)
and yet she doesn't mean the man from the affair (who the partner craves for her to say..knowing there must be another)..but infact him..as the love and meaning is truly lost.
Then I found out I was completely wrong, when i checked the lyrics
I never hear those guys on the radio. But,The Beatles,I hear all the time. Of course,I fall asleep when I try to listen to classical music-just not sophisticated enough,I guess. They need better lyrics.
Well that is just simply nonsense. Anyone who agrees with that simply has no clue about the complexity and depth of the music written by those three, especially Bach (meaning Johann Sebastian Bach, I presume).
The complexity and depth of the music are totally irrelevant! It's the impact that it had that matters. The music of The Beatles had a much bigger impact on humanity (partially because of radio and TV of course) than Bach's music ever had.
Hundreds of years from now, the Beatles will be remembered as almost mythical figures, like we remember Shakespear, Da Vinci, Bach or Rembrandt now.
And most classical might be much more complex and deeper than any piece of pop music ever made, but I think it's arrogant to think that (good) pop music is a lower art form than classical music, painting, sculpturing or poetry. Cause it simply isn't. I studied art history for several years, but no art form has ever touched me the way pop music does. To not recognize pop music as a true form of art is to me arrogant and overtly conservative.
You've gotta be kidding... If writing the best selling music ever isn't good enough to be labeled a genius, then I seriously don't know what is... You're just not making any sense here.
Home
Calendar
Search
Register
Login
Joost
Male
Female
Logged
(smitten)
