"Underappreciated Genius."
-
I have a great friend, Robert Pollard, who for 20 years made it a habit of making sure that a good portion of his 3+ hour concerts with either his band, Guided by Voices, or as a solo artist, contained about half new material each tour. Are ya asking who Robert Pollard is? He's a genius. But, his own artistic inability to set still (lest he bore himself, some say the worst sin for a creator) alienated many "fans." This is all very argueable, but it remains a choce we all must make. Do we go see the hits, or do we stay home? I bet the guy would read this and shake his head wondering just what you gotta do....Remember when we cursed him for not doing Beatle songs? I sure do, and II vividly remember the joy when he cracked out the hits around the time of WoA. I still say GENIUS.
-
Well I can't say either way if we were to stick with the technical definition of 'Genius' (while I have the general idea, I'm not sure I could even state the specific/exact definition)...but it terms of how our society labels many people who have shown brilliant work within their respective fields, Paul certainly deserves to be called a genius...Just yesterday, I was watching football (American NFL football) and heard announcers refer to several coaches as genius's (how do you make that plural??? ops: )...In recent weeks, I've heard various actors referred to as 'genius'...So in our loose layman's interpretation of the word, I'd say Paul fits.
-
rich n:
Well I can't say either way if we were to stick with the technical definition of 'Genius' (while I have the general idea, I'm not sure I could even state the specific/exact definition)...but it terms of how our society labels many people who have shown brilliant work within their respective fields, Paul certainly deserves to be called a genius...Just yesterday, I was watching football (American NFL football) and heard announcers refer to several coaches as genius's (how do you make that plural??? ops: )...In recent weeks, I've heard various actors referred to as 'genius'...So in our loose layman's interpretation of the word, I'd say Paul fits.
I guess I would qualify this and say McCartney is a "musical genius" which is different from a genius like Einstein for example. I was taken back the other day listening to him sing "Yesterday" (Citifield concert) and thinking that he composed this wonderful and poignant song when he was 23 !!! The lyrics fit a man of McCartney's age now and that he was able to put this type of feeling into song at such a young age is amazing. If I had to describe McCartney, I would say he is a brillant musician and composer of melody. He has written some haunting and beautiful lyrics but has had his cringe worth moments also. He has one of the great rock and roll voices of all times and is a legendary live performer. Finally, I think saying "musical genius" might make it easier for people to agree.
-
calicoskych2001:
Wendy2066:
Please let's not turn this thread into yet another set-list discussion. I'll refrain from saying more on that in here.
Wendy is right here. Please continue the discussion on the set list on one of the several threads dedicated to the topic. Thank you.
Let me add to my point. We did not start a duplicate thread and the content is not obscene so I don't see your point. You job as a moderator is to make sure all content is not offensive and to make sure there are not a million new threads on the same subject. If I am missing something, let me know.
-
yankeefan7:
lazydynamite88:
yankeefan7:
lazydynamite88:
he can do nothing with his legacy these days that will alter my fantastic opinion of his solo work. it is awe inspiring ,every note interests me.its highs are at least the equal of anything he did as a 'beatle'.its lows are not as often as the critics would have you believe. there is something interesting about almost every mccartney solo/wings album.its a real shame that he prefers to leave most of it on the shelf. but hey,he cant please everyone and mccartney has always been a cold blooded buisnessman at times..he plays the beatles hits for the disposable 'fan for the night' who want to see a bit of history and are prepared to pay top dollar. a 'hardcore' mccartney solo fan does not have a hope in hell of seeing any of his more obscure songs live any time soon.pauls 'ego' would never allow anybody leaving one of his modern day concerts without fully being aware of his beatles legacy.
WOA tour there was only 5 Beatle songs. The first solo tour after Wings (1989), McCartney played numerous songs off "Flowers In The Dirt" and several 1950's rock and roll covers. The 1993 tour follwed the same pattern as McCartney played a bunch of songs off his new release at the time "Off The Ground". McCartney started playing more Beatle hits in the tours of 2000 but he has always added some new things like "Here Today" from "Tug of War" and "Too Many People" from "Ram". McCartney also always plays a few songs from his most current release at his concerts. I find your statement about Paul's ego not allowing anybody to leave one of his modern day concerts without being fully aware of his Beatle legacy quite funny. What planet are you on that you think McCartney needs to perform Beatle songs at his concert for people so people know his Beatle legacy. I saw McCartney at Citifield this summer and he did "Sing The Changes" and "Highway" that are fairly obscure and I bet only the most "hardcore" McCartney fans knew them from his Fireman record.. He also did "Dance Tonight" and Only "Mama Knows" from MAF. McCartney also sang "Mrs. Vanderbilt" from "BOTR" for the first time live in the US. Finally, think of other artists you have seen in concert and think about their setlist. I am willing to bet most top acts play the hits over and over again and add 4-5 new songs each tour which is probably off their latest record.
errr..what planet im i on??? planet earth the last time i checked. without going over old ground here about 'set lists' etc lets just say my opinions are pretty widespread for the 'mccartney' fans i know. it appears there is a general difference in the thoughts of your average 'uk' paul fan and your average 'american' paul fan. here in the 'uk' we prefer to call a spade a spade and no matter how much we admire 'paul' he is not beyond mild and harsh criticism at times. my perception may be wrong but your average 'american' fan appears to show a remarkably hostile reaction to anyone daring to take a pop however small at any of 'pauls' choices.. personally ive never been a fan of blind loyalty,but each to their own.i suppose it is the official paul mccartney forum after all. it seems we all agree that paul really is a 'genious' and you wont get an argument from me on that..i just hope he spends his last serious working years doing what he does best and creates lots of new 'rock/pop' records.its the one thing that truely excites me still about him. i dont really care much for his 'groundhog day' concerts anymore .ive never really been that interested in his classical works or indeed any of his political global issues.hes entitled to his opinion but thats exactly what it is. a new 'mccartney' record will do fine for me .even an 'average' mccartney record like 'memory almost full' has more good stuff on it than the rest of the current charts put together..
You can criticize McCartney all you want, that is your right and you are certainly entitled to your opinion. My "planet earth" comment was because I could not believe that you actually thought McCartney had to play Beatle songs at concerts for people to make them fully aware of his Beatle legacy. I am going to go out on a limb and say that 99.9% of the concert audience is going to the show to hear Beatle songs so they are fully aware of his Beatle legacy. There are quite a few fans on this board that do not have the "blind" loyalty that you mention and they are from the US. I have had no problem with trashing McCartney records I thought were horrible (exp. "Wild Life", "McCartney II", "Pipes Of Peace" etc). I really don't care about his political causes either but don't blame him for using his celebrity to advance these causes. If you think his concerts are the same old thing, then so be it and there will be others that agree with you. I would love to hear more solo McCartney songs in concert but that is just my wish and probably never happen so I will let it go. As I mentioned above, he does perform different songs and he is no different from most artists who do the same things with their shows. For example, I have seen Elton John a few times recently and his show was not much different from the first time I saw him to the last time. The rock band "The Who" basically performed the same show for decades, did you criticize them? Bill Joel has not put out a new record since 1993 and has toured with a almost identical show several times. So if we are going to criticize McCartney about a setlist, lets criticize other well known "classic rock" artists. Finally, I think this last decade has been some of McCartney's finest recordings since leaving the Beatles. (certainly blows away other decades like the 80"s).
yankee... you make some interesting points and i have to say you almost convinced me untill you put out the line..'i have seen elton john a few times recently.....' sorry but all your new found credibility in my eyes vanished out the window! i would go into more detail but for fear of the'set list' police who could be watching at any time.it appears every single comment on this board has to be pigeon holed in the right compartment as to not annoy completists
-
Kestrel:
Paul McCatney is not a genius. He's just got the knack of composing memorable melodies and thats about it. His work is generally far too inconsistant and superficial to be classed as a work of a genius. But Paul's still top of his tree, I can't think of anyone who is better at doing what Paul McCartney does.
they label 'footballers' and 'snooker players' genious these days so i have no problem with paul mccartney being hailed a genious. infact your a bit harsh here 'kestrel'. im not even sure i think his work is 'inconsistant' or 'superficial'. theres something for me on EVERY mccartney record [even 'memory almost full]! i would dissagree and say his work is 'consistant' and very very inspiring. forgetting about his ever 'strained' live vocals and his 'beatles heavy' set lists i would say paul mccartney is a genious who has no match in modern music.
-
lazydynamite88:
yankeefan7:
lazydynamite88:
yankeefan7:
lazydynamite88:
he can do nothing with his legacy these days that will alter my fantastic opinion of his solo work. it is awe inspiring ,every note interests me.its highs are at least the equal of anything he did as a 'beatle'.its lows are not as often as the critics would have you believe. there is something interesting about almost every mccartney solo/wings album.its a real shame that he prefers to leave most of it on the shelf. but hey,he cant please everyone and mccartney has always been a cold blooded buisnessman at times..he plays the beatles hits for the disposable 'fan for the night' who want to see a bit of history and are prepared to pay top dollar. a 'hardcore' mccartney solo fan does not have a hope in hell of seeing any of his more obscure songs live any time soon.pauls 'ego' would never allow anybody leaving one of his modern day concerts without fully being aware of his beatles legacy.
WOA tour there was only 5 Beatle songs. The first solo tour after Wings (1989), McCartney played numerous songs off "Flowers In The Dirt" and several 1950's rock and roll covers. The 1993 tour follwed the same pattern as McCartney played a bunch of songs off his new release at the time "Off The Ground". McCartney started playing more Beatle hits in the tours of 2000 but he has always added some new things like "Here Today" from "Tug of War" and "Too Many People" from "Ram". McCartney also always plays a few songs from his most current release at his concerts. I find your statement about Paul's ego not allowing anybody to leave one of his modern day concerts without being fully aware of his Beatle legacy quite funny. What planet are you on that you think McCartney needs to perform Beatle songs at his concert for people so people know his Beatle legacy. I saw McCartney at Citifield this summer and he did "Sing The Changes" and "Highway" that are fairly obscure and I bet only the most "hardcore" McCartney fans knew them from his Fireman record.. He also did "Dance Tonight" and Only "Mama Knows" from MAF. McCartney also sang "Mrs. Vanderbilt" from "BOTR" for the first time live in the US. Finally, think of other artists you have seen in concert and think about their setlist. I am willing to bet most top acts play the hits over and over again and add 4-5 new songs each tour which is probably off their latest record.
errr..what planet im i on??? planet earth the last time i checked. without going over old ground here about 'set lists' etc lets just say my opinions are pretty widespread for the 'mccartney' fans i know. it appears there is a general difference in the thoughts of your average 'uk' paul fan and your average 'american' paul fan. here in the 'uk' we prefer to call a spade a spade and no matter how much we admire 'paul' he is not beyond mild and harsh criticism at times. my perception may be wrong but your average 'american' fan appears to show a remarkably hostile reaction to anyone daring to take a pop however small at any of 'pauls' choices.. personally ive never been a fan of blind loyalty,but each to their own.i suppose it is the official paul mccartney forum after all. it seems we all agree that paul really is a 'genious' and you wont get an argument from me on that..i just hope he spends his last serious working years doing what he does best and creates lots of new 'rock/pop' records.its the one thing that truely excites me still about him. i dont really care much for his 'groundhog day' concerts anymore .ive never really been that interested in his classical works or indeed any of his political global issues.hes entitled to his opinion but thats exactly what it is. a new 'mccartney' record will do fine for me .even an 'average' mccartney record like 'memory almost full' has more good stuff on it than the rest of the current charts put together..
You can criticize McCartney all you want, that is your right and you are certainly entitled to your opinion. My "planet earth" comment was because I could not believe that you actually thought McCartney had to play Beatle songs at concerts for people to make them fully aware of his Beatle legacy. I am going to go out on a limb and say that 99.9% of the concert audience is going to the show to hear Beatle songs so they are fully aware of his Beatle legacy. There are quite a few fans on this board that do not have the "blind" loyalty that you mention and they are from the US. I have had no problem with trashing McCartney records I thought were horrible (exp. "Wild Life", "McCartney II", "Pipes Of Peace" etc). I really don't care about his political causes either but don't blame him for using his celebrity to advance these causes. If you think his concerts are the same old thing, then so be it and there will be others that agree with you. I would love to hear more solo McCartney songs in concert but that is just my wish and probably never happen so I will let it go. As I mentioned above, he does perform different songs and he is no different from most artists who do the same things with their shows. For example, I have seen Elton John a few times recently and his show was not much different from the first time I saw him to the last time. The rock band "The Who" basically performed the same show for decades, did you criticize them? Bill Joel has not put out a new record since 1993 and has toured with a almost identical show several times. So if we are going to criticize McCartney about a setlist, lets criticize other well known "classic rock" artists. Finally, I think this last decade has been some of McCartney's finest recordings since leaving the Beatles. (certainly blows away other decades like the 80"s).
yankee... you make some interesting points and i have to say you almost convinced me untill you put out the line..'i have seen elton john a few times recently.....' sorry but all your new found credibility in my eyes vanished out the window! i would go into more detail but for fear of the'set list' police who could be watching at any time.it appears every single comment on this board has to be pigeon holed in the right compartment as to not annoy completists
Regarding Elton John, I won free tickets years ago when he was promoting his "Peachtree" record. Why pass up free tickets? I saw him with Billy Joel (Face to Face) because my two teenage daughters wanted to see Billy Joel and my wife and I wanted to go with them. Maybe recently was the wrong word. I agree with you totally about the setlist police and check out my comments to them.
-
yes, 'musical genuis' is the right classification for paul mccartney! ABOUT ELTON john, i've certainly gotten a lot of pleasure from many of his songs and from his singing and piano playing, i don't look down on yankee's tastes for going to elton john concerts, no way (just my opinion). overall, i've experienced more pleasure from mccartney music than anyone else's--have certainly gone through periods over the years and recently of only listening mainly, in turn, to joni mitchell, simon & garfunkel and paul simon, the beatles, rolling stones, art garfunkel, jimmy webb, bruce springsteen, kate bush, judy collins laura nyro, elton john, george harrison, john lennon, james taylor, carly simon, neil young, bob dylan, sarah maclachlan, coldplay and some others (should have been brian wilson too, i realize now), going through spells of monomania musically, but macca music (includes but certainly not limited to beatles music) being number 1 in my books still stands. very, very impressive i know that's true for a lot of other music lovers as well mccartney's usually got the whole package, everything. he's everything. 'that's all'
-
Yeah if there if anyone in rock/pop music today who deserves the qualification of "genius", IMO it's Paul McCartney. I can't believe that could even be called into question. I'm in awe of the man's abilities even when he's done something that isn't quite my cup of tea.
-
high_wilusa:
Yeah if there if anyone in rock/pop music today who deserves the qualification of "genius", IMO it's Paul McCartney. I can't believe that could even be called into question. I'm in awe of the man's abilities even when he's done something that isn't quite my cup of tea.
I was surprised anyone on here would deny he's a genius. I thought the debate would be over which areas he's a genius in. I actually think musical genius is too limiting a term for him. I think people get snowed by Paul's modesty and desire to be considered just one of the boys. He's a genius at sizing up his environment and adjusting his vocabulary and speech patterns to suit. He can talk simple, or he can use "big words." He can have beer with the boys or he can, from what I've seen and heard, hold his own in academic debates. Paul is very very clever! Don't discount his wit that often comes out in interviews. He's really quick, often funny.
-
McCartney lost at Golden Globe ceremony (Best Song - Movie), would be nice if he won at a award ceremony once .
-
yankeefan7:
McCartney lost at Golden Globe ceremony (Best Song - Movie), would be nice if he won at a award ceremony once .
As John would say "I'm A Loser" ops: It's funny how in the US he's always the Bridesmaid at awards ceremony,especially the Grammies.It's puzzling that Electric Arguments wasn't even nominated for the 2009 Grammy Awards,when Flaming Pie, Chaos and MAF were,very strange indeed.
-
Where did he place, what song(s) beat him? He should have won! That's an example of him being under appreciated!
-
'the weary kind' theme song to 'crazy heart' starring jeff bridges. and sung by jeff, i have it in a recent post on my ' some of your favorite music videos' on the 'band on the road i mean run' forum. on band on the run board
-
Thanks, Susy! So at least it was a good song that won, eh? And while I'm in here, calling him just a musical genius also discounts his film work and potential in that field. I know "Give my Regards to Broadsreet" got some bad reveiws, but apparently it also got about 75% positive ones, and there was some good stuff in it! With so little experience he did amazingly well.
-
Wendy2066:
Thanks, Susy! So at least it was a good song that won, eh? And while I'm in here, calling him just a musical genius also discounts his film work and potential in that field. I know "Give my Regards to Broadsreet" got some bad reveiws, but apparently it also got about 75% positive ones, and there was some good stuff in it! With so little experience he did amazingly well.
I think some of the musical sequences are really good but overall the movie stinks.I think it really pales next to A Hard Day's Night and even Help which seems really weak today.
-
Everything that has been posted are the same old justifications! The point is, how long does McCartney keep doing the same old setlist? Adding a measly 5 different songs just doesn't cut it. He's considered the Beatle lovers for over TWO DECADES PLUS, I repeat TWO DECADES PLUS! How much more do they expect? McCartneys setlist has been Beatle heavy ever since the 80's, to me that's just ridiculous! How hard would it be to balance it out, to do shows that are more representative of his entire career? All he'd have to do is even it all out, I've said many times, he averages about 36 songs a show, so just do... 12 Beatle 12 Wings 12 Solo McCartney mixes them up anyway he likes so that the crowd is hit with surprise after surprise. A very simple solution. It's always going to be someones first time seeing McCartney, does that mean the man is in Beatle setlist prison for the rest of his life! To me that's totally boring, and how on Earth could anyone be happy with that? To me the person that just accepts that is guilty of underappreciating McCartneys genuis! I exspect way more from someone as brilliant as McCartney! Also how could any fan of McCartney not want to hear as much of this mans fantastic music performed live as possible? Some people always use the word obscure when it comes to the post Beatle material, well how about McCartney performing the more known Wings and solo material, let's not forget those Wings album did go #1, so they are more well known then they are ever given credit for! Wings have a huge following, those concerts set world records, the Wings fans haven't just dissapeared from the planet, they are still out there! Justify it anyway you want, but there just isn't any excuse why McCartney shouldn't be performing more of his post Beatles music! How many artist do you know that have #1 hits they've never ever performed? It's just way past time that McCartney changed his setlist, and more and more people are starting to say so!
-
As has already been requested by Liz (Board Admin) please let's keep the set list discussions separate. In other words, let's aim to keep this thread on topic i.e. discussing Paul McCartney as an underappreciated genius. Whilst it has been suggested that some may feel there could be a connection with people's appreciation of him and the songs that he chooses to sing at concerts, that in itself is just leading us back to yet another set list discussion which is really another totally separate debate that has been run over and over in the past and is still being run on this board in other threads (see Rock Show forum). As has already been suggested by other posts on here, there are many other ways in which Paul can be discussed as being an underappreciated genius, let's explore those please and even new avenues, and aim to keep this thread vibrant and original
-
BOYCIE:
yankeefan7:
McCartney lost at Golden Globe ceremony (Best Song - Movie), would be nice if he won at a award ceremony once .
As John would say "I'm A Loser" ops: It's funny how in the US he's always the Bridesmaid at awards ceremony,especially the Grammies.It's puzzling that Electric Arguments wasn't even nominated for the 2009 Grammy Awards,when Flaming Pie, Chaos and MAF were,very strange indeed.
Maybe because" Electric Arguments" is a "Fireman" and not aMcCartney record. I think that would be a dumb reason but I don't know any other explanation after all the good critical accaim for "Electric Arguments".
-
yankeefan7:
BOYCIE:
yankeefan7:
McCartney lost at Golden Globe ceremony (Best Song - Movie), would be nice if he won at a award ceremony once .
As John would say "I'm A Loser" ops: It's funny how in the US he's always the Bridesmaid at awards ceremony,especially the Grammies.It's puzzling that Electric Arguments wasn't even nominated for the 2009 Grammy Awards,when Flaming Pie, Chaos and MAF were,very strange indeed.
Maybe because" Electric Arguments" is a "Fireman" and not aMcCartney record. I think that would be a dumb reason but I don't know any other explanation after all the good critical accaim for "Electric Arguments".
Let's face facts. The Grammy awarda are a sales tool more than an indicator of artistic merit, and as The Fireman, McCartney takes his genius outside his shop, so to speak. He's doing what many modern artists do and branching out into different segments of his persona, an admirable act that speaks to artt more than commerce. We live in a time when no one, I repeat no one, is much being touted as artists, geniuses, or for that matter even having their work looked at outside of their tabloid lives. And that is a shame that will grow larger in time if noot corrected. We need relevent discussion of art by those who lived with it as it happened, and not just to be forgotten or relegated to posthumous discussion by later generations. Look at the posts on any artists message board, and compare art to personality in terms of volume. And this is where art is looked at most. So, yeah, lets discuss Paul's underappreciated genius. His work has been an amazing testament to the man's life by most any measure.