Perhaps the point being made is that while Paul talks about being into avante garde (like it or not) this is not reflected in the music he produced, whereas it seems John absorbed and used these influences (for better or worse).
Be yourself, no matter what they say. Administrator
Posts
4,437
Gender
Male
Posts Per Day
2.71
Quoted from Ydoll_Gwyn
Paul knows - that's why he's into such a revisionist mode these days. You know Appy, some fans actually fall for all that "Paul was the real avante garde one". On being asked to actually give us some examples, they shuffle their feet and um & ah. Fact is, Appy, the likes of us DO know. We have Rain, and Fields, and Tomorrow Never, and Walrus, and ... Well, there ya go. Case closed.
It seems it's well documented that McCartney's time with The Ashers towards the mid-sixties, played a part in his nurturing interest in the London, Avante Garde scene. Invoking a lot of classical arrangements in his compositions.
Did'nt you know Ydoll?
Thought a REAL fan might.
I think Lennon's interpretations of Psychadelia were much further down the road due to his deeper experimentations in Hallucinogenic drug taking (Mid-sixties). I personally love this time in Lennon's writing.
Is your blood boiling about Paul again Ydoll? ..........What case? I did'nt know I presented one. Ummm & Ahhh, Errrm shuffle, shuffle.....
I don't think Paul is rewriting history. He's been saying these things for over 30 years. He said he was listening to John Cage in the late '60s and had an open mind to more avant garde things. George Martin has acknowledged that.
I think he's rewriting history for sure - and he's been doing it for a long time, as you say. To my mind it's got a lot worse in the last five years. Both John and George cannot gainsay him.
A lot of folk were listening to Cage, it's true. Paul as well I'm sure. But my point is: who was DOING it as opposed to talking about? Mr Lennon.
It seems it's well documented that McCartney's time with The Ashers towards the mid-sixties, played a part in his nurturing interest in the London, Avante Garde scene. Invoking a lot of classical arrangements in his compositions.
Did'nt you know Ydoll?
Thought a REAL fan might.
I think Lennon's interpretations of Psychadelia were much further down the road due to his deeper experimentations in Hallucinogenic drug taking (Mid-sixties). I personally love this time in Lennon's writing.
Yeah, yeah I know all that about Paul and the Ashers. Yadda yadda, Appy.
BUT as I just wrote in reply to a post from juniorsfarm: Paul only talked about it. John actually did it. That's the difference between the two. Kevin_b puts it better than me: Perhaps the point being made is that while Paul talks about being into avante garde (like it or not) this is not reflected in the music he produced, whereas it seems John absorbed and used these influences (for better or worse).
And further from Appy:
Quoted Text
Is your blood boiling about Paul again Ydoll? ..........What case? I did'nt know I presented one. Ummm & Ahhh, Errrm shuffle, shuffle.....
Well, seems as if you're trying to put a little bit of bite into your posts, Appy. But you've failed!
What is the problem then? Paul might be into avantgarde and experimental things just as much as John or anybody else did. He's obviously been telling us he was doing so for over thirty years. John put these things into his music quite clearly, Paul chose another way of expressing himself. Can't see the problem... Paul might have been experimenting with tapes and loops and things as well as John. John had the guts to show it, and got the credits for being into this avantgarde thing. But that still doesn't mean Paul might have wanted to do the same thing, had he been the more revolutionary kind. He wasn't, but that's ok.
There's that scene in A Fish Called Wanda when Kevin Kleins charachter keeps going on how clever he is because he reads Nitzche (spelling) "Monkeys can't read Nitzche!" he says. "Yes they can" retorted Michael Palin (I think) , "they just don't understand it."
I think he's rewriting history for sure - and he's been doing it for a long time, as you say. To my mind it's got a lot worse in the last five years. Both John and George cannot gainsay him.
A lot of folk were listening to Cage, it's true. Paul as well I'm sure. But my point is: who was DOING it as opposed to talking about? Mr Lennon.
Right. That's what I said, but I thought the point was who was into it, not necessarily doing/creating it. I think Paul was as open minded to experimental stuff as anyone. John just took it to an extreme. I guess I wish Paul could let the John thing go. He has been duking it out with a dead man for years to prove that they were equals and it wasn't so one-sided as far as John was concerned. John has been deified, martyred, what have you, and regardless if they were both into Cage or whatever, its a battle he can't win.
Radio Lightning WRLT here in Nashville does an oldies program on Saturday mornings--they pick a year and play music from that year for three hours, ending (always) with a Beatles (or ex-Beatles) song.
This past Saturday was 1968 and they closed out with "Revolution 9."
Anthology doesn't tell us: Paul tells us! He's always going on these days about how HE was the avante garde man, how he was into tape loops, yadda yadda. Paul: only your most fervent fans believe any of your revisionist nonsense. John went and DID things. While you were doing Honey Pie, John did Rev 9, and bit you on the bum! Take that Paulie!
well said. paul tends to take credit for mess that john did...after they broke up or he died. funny that. but anyway, rev 9 was about a revolution in music and what john and ringo could really do when playing around with the stuff in the studio. its a great piece of music even if one doesnt like it. although i think most believe its crap cause it's not straightforward or hints at a deeper meaning. its just as the name implies, it's a revolution
but just curious, what did they do with the revolutions 2-8?
"if asking, begging and pleading doesn't work, always go with a song and dance number."
Yeah, that was Paul's plan all along. Wait until John dies so he could take all the credit. Maybe he's just telling it like it was. He knows John went and did it. All he said was the he was living in London at the time and was around it more and introduced John to it. So what? Now he's taking credit. Jeez, I'm surprised no ones ever started a conspiracy about Paul plotting John's death just so he could come out as top Beatle. I REALLY don't believe Paul has any ulterior motives when he talks about the past. I think he's telling it as he remembers it. And George and Ringo never seemed to dispute his stories.
Home
Calendar
Search
Register
Login
Kevin
Male
Female
Logged
