From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V18 #215 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Wednesday, December 8 2010 Volume 18 : Number 215 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: The Electric Arguments [ross ] Re: The Electric Arguments [2fs ] Re: The Electric Arguments [Jeremy Osner ] Re: The Electric Arguments [Jeremy Osner ] Re: The Electric Arguments [ross ] Re: The Electric Arguments [michaeljbachman@comcast.net] Re: The Electric Arguments [Jeremy Osner ] Re: The Electric Arguments [2fs ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 12:29:09 -0500 From: ross Subject: Re: The Electric Arguments On 10-12-05 03:16 PM, 2fs wrote: > but for example: it may sound saccharine on the surface, but name a > '60s song that looks with more emotional engagement and sympathy at both > sides of the parent/child divide during that era than "She's Leaving Home." > (True, Lennon's counterpoint adds just the right measure of cynicism.) > > > > Right, but is there an example of that sort of depth of thought in the Wings material? I'm seeing it now in his post-Wings output. It seems now that Macca knows he's not going to get airplay anyway, he's allowed himself to focus on the artistic qualities of his music over mass appeal. Starting around Flaming Pie, you can hear that aspect of Beatle Paul resurface. I'd written him off in the 70s, but I'm enjoying some of the newer stuff as much as I ever enjoyed his work with the Beatles. Paul has said it himself in explaining the existence of The Fireman. He wanted to be able to do something other than crank out pop hits. In a parallel discussion on FB, I suggested listening to Rinse The Raindrops. That building of tension without release is very Beatlesque. Slide that in beside the likes of Magneto and Titanium Man and see if you don't feel as if you're being "talked down to" in the latter. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 21:13:41 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: Re: The Electric Arguments On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:29 AM, ross wrote: > On 10-12-05 03:16 PM, 2fs wrote: > >> but for example: it may sound saccharine on the surface, but name a >> '60s song that looks with more emotional engagement and sympathy at both >> sides of the parent/child divide during that era than "She's Leaving >> Home." >> (True, Lennon's counterpoint adds just the right measure of cynicism.) >> >> >> >> >> > Right, but is there an example of that sort of depth of thought in the > Wings material? > Actually, I'd say the answer is both "Yes" and "No"...but the "no" is a sort of "yes." I'll address the straightforward "yes" first: I would argue that something like "Dear Friend" takes up similar concerns but, of course, on a personal level. (I think "Let 'em In" works in a similar, but more global, fashion). I think a lot of McCartney's media problem is that his urge toward reconciliation and compromise gets consistently read as wimpy and commercial and hence un-rock-n-roll - whereas Lennon's more blunt, stubborn approach is valorized as the essence of rock attitude. I would say both men's attitudes have their place (and both men were certainly capable of the other side), but once the image was cemented into place, it was hard to dislodge. Here's a thought experiment: Imagine "Imagine" done by McCartney: the song is exactly the same (except, perhaps, the recording approach to vocals (no treatment) and piano (brighter)...)...what do you think critics would have said? I'm pretty sure they would have slammed it to the ground as simplistic, treacly, sentimental, naive, saccharine, etc. (It may well BE those things). The more complicated "no" that's a "yes" works like this: I think McCartney was rebelling against the excessively self-serious, "heavy" notion of rock predominant in the '70s. I think that writing and recording intentionally whimsical, catchy, lighter-toned pop songs, he was in fact making a statement about the limits of the dead-serious approach (exemplified by John on his admittedly brilliant JL/POB album). He was standing up for just bloody having a good time with a fun tune. "What's wrong with that?" And in fact, I'd argue that what might be Paul's most maligned song - "Silly Love Songs" - is exactly that: a thoughtful, if subtle, attack at the notion that rock music had to be weighty and serious. And in that way - take a deep breath - Paul McCartney shared many of the motivations, or at least the antipathies, of the early punk rockers. But not the fashion sense. Or the drug preferences: it's all about Paul's well-known preference for pot perhaps... - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.wordpress.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 22:22:46 -0500 From: Jeremy Osner Subject: Re: The Electric Arguments Is "Mother Nature's Son" a Beatles song or a Paul song? For some reason I always think of it as a Paul solo tune but wasn't it on the White Album or something like that? I like that song a lot. Our man Robyn's cover of it on one of his UCLA college radio appearances (on YouTube and I don't think very hard to find) opened some new insights into it for me. On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 10:13 PM, 2fs wrote: > On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:29 AM, ross wrote: > >> On 10-12-05 03:16 PM, 2fs wrote: >> >>> but for example: it may sound saccharine on the surface, but name a >>> '60s song that looks with more emotional engagement and sympathy at both >>> sides of the parent/child divide during that era than "She's Leaving >>> Home." >>> (True, Lennon's counterpoint adds just the right measure of cynicism.) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> Right, but is there an example of that sort of depth of thought in the >> Wings material? >> > > > Actually, I'd say the answer is both "Yes" and "No"...but the "no" is a sort > of "yes." > > I'll address the straightforward "yes" first: I would argue that something > like "Dear Friend" takes up similar concerns but, of course, on a personal > level. (I think "Let 'em In" works in a similar, but more global, fashion). > I think a lot of McCartney's media problem is that his urge toward > reconciliation and compromise gets consistently read as wimpy and commercial > and hence un-rock-n-roll - whereas Lennon's more blunt, stubborn approach is > valorized as the essence of rock attitude. I would say both men's attitudes > have their place (and both men were certainly capable of the other side), > but once the image was cemented into place, it was hard to dislodge. Here's > a thought experiment: Imagine "Imagine" done by McCartney: the song is > exactly the same (except, perhaps, the recording approach to vocals (no > treatment) and piano (brighter)...)...what do you think critics would have > said? I'm pretty sure they would have slammed it to the ground as > simplistic, treacly, sentimental, naive, saccharine, etc. (It may well BE > those things). > > The more complicated "no" that's a "yes" works like this: I think McCartney > was rebelling against the excessively self-serious, "heavy" notion of rock > predominant in the '70s. I think that writing and recording intentionally > whimsical, catchy, lighter-toned pop songs, he was in fact making a > statement about the limits of the dead-serious approach (exemplified by John > on his admittedly brilliant JL/POB album). He was standing up for just > bloody having a good time with a fun tune. "What's wrong with that?" > > And in fact, I'd argue that what might be Paul's most maligned song - "Silly > Love Songs" - is exactly that: a thoughtful, if subtle, attack at the notion > that rock music had to be weighty and serious. And in that way - take a deep > breath - Paul McCartney shared many of the motivations, or at least the > antipathies, of the early punk rockers. > > But not the fashion sense. Or the drug preferences: it's all about Paul's > well-known preference for pot perhaps... > > > > -- > ...Jeff Norman > > The Architectural Dance Society > http://spanghew.wordpress.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 22:23:33 -0500 From: Jeremy Osner Subject: Re: The Electric Arguments This appearance I mean, on KCRW: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2p7CFjGkco On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 10:22 PM, Jeremy Osner wrote: > Is "Mother Nature's Son" a Beatles song or a Paul song? For some > reason I always think of it as a Paul solo tune but wasn't it on the > White Album or something like that? I like that song a lot. Our man > Robyn's cover of it on one of his UCLA college radio appearances (on > YouTube and I don't think very hard to find) opened some new insights > into it for me. > > On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 10:13 PM, 2fs wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:29 AM, ross wrote: >> >>> On 10-12-05 03:16 PM, 2fs wrote: >>> >>>> but for example: it may sound saccharine on the surface, but name a >>>> '60s song that looks with more emotional engagement and sympathy at both >>>> sides of the parent/child divide during that era than "She's Leaving >>>> Home." >>>> (True, Lennon's counterpoint adds just the right measure of cynicism.) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Right, but is there an example of that sort of depth of thought in the >>> Wings material? >>> >> >> >> Actually, I'd say the answer is both "Yes" and "No"...but the "no" is a sort >> of "yes." >> >> I'll address the straightforward "yes" first: I would argue that something >> like "Dear Friend" takes up similar concerns but, of course, on a personal >> level. (I think "Let 'em In" works in a similar, but more global, fashion). >> I think a lot of McCartney's media problem is that his urge toward >> reconciliation and compromise gets consistently read as wimpy and commercial >> and hence un-rock-n-roll - whereas Lennon's more blunt, stubborn approach is >> valorized as the essence of rock attitude. I would say both men's attitudes >> have their place (and both men were certainly capable of the other side), >> but once the image was cemented into place, it was hard to dislodge. Here's >> a thought experiment: Imagine "Imagine" done by McCartney: the song is >> exactly the same (except, perhaps, the recording approach to vocals (no >> treatment) and piano (brighter)...)...what do you think critics would have >> said? I'm pretty sure they would have slammed it to the ground as >> simplistic, treacly, sentimental, naive, saccharine, etc. (It may well BE >> those things). >> >> The more complicated "no" that's a "yes" works like this: I think McCartney >> was rebelling against the excessively self-serious, "heavy" notion of rock >> predominant in the '70s. I think that writing and recording intentionally >> whimsical, catchy, lighter-toned pop songs, he was in fact making a >> statement about the limits of the dead-serious approach (exemplified by John >> on his admittedly brilliant JL/POB album). He was standing up for just >> bloody having a good time with a fun tune. "What's wrong with that?" >> >> And in fact, I'd argue that what might be Paul's most maligned song - "Silly >> Love Songs" - is exactly that: a thoughtful, if subtle, attack at the notion >> that rock music had to be weighty and serious. And in that way - take a deep >> breath - Paul McCartney shared many of the motivations, or at least the >> antipathies, of the early punk rockers. >> >> But not the fashion sense. Or the drug preferences: it's all about Paul's >> well-known preference for pot perhaps... >> >> >> >> -- >> ...Jeff Norman >> >> The Architectural Dance Society >> http://spanghew.wordpress.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 23:55:55 -0500 From: ross Subject: Re: The Electric Arguments On 10-12-06 10:22 PM, Jeremy Osner wrote: > Is "Mother Nature's Son" a Beatles song or a Paul song? For some > reason I always think of it as a Paul solo tune but wasn't it on the > White Album or something like that? I like that song a lot. Our man > Robyn's cover of it on one of his UCLA college radio appearances (on > YouTube and I don't think very hard to find) opened some new insights > into it for me. > It's officially a Beatles song from the White Album -- but it's a quintessential Paul song, too. I'm pretty sure the others had nothing to do with it. I think that song illustrates my point of view nicely. That Paul went into hiding during the Wings years. Who knows why? Was it because he wasn't competing with John on the same records? And that's the crux of it; it's not just that Paul wrote fluffier material because that's all he could do. He wrote better material on the average with the Beatles, and is hitting that level again. So it's not just what Paul does, and that we're biased against Paul because of who he is. I'm not disappointed so much in Paul's solo music vs. John's; it's Beatle Paul vs. Paul of Wings that leaves me feeling cheated -- with a few exceptions -- until we get to Flaming Pie. His first solo album had that deeper feeling to it. Ram had some of it. Then he seemingly gave it up to in the pursuit of pure pop stardom. On that level, he wins. Take Paul's 5 most trite offerings and compare them to 5 of John's. Who looks worse? Now take his worst Wings material and compare to post Flaming Pie Paul. To me, the latter-day Paul wins by a big margin. Paul of Wings loses even to his former and latter-day self. Maybe it's just that Lovely Rita came out during my formative years and Magneto And Titanium Man didn't make the scene until I'd become cynical, but one seems more alive to me than the other. I honestly don't fully understand why; Rita's hardly a well-developed character. Magneto and Titanium Man just makes me mad that he's not giving us more. > On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 10:13 PM, 2fs wrote: > >> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:29 AM, ross wrote: >> >> >>> On 10-12-05 03:16 PM, 2fs wrote: >>> >>> >>>> but for example: it may sound saccharine on the surface, but name a >>>> '60s song that looks with more emotional engagement and sympathy at both >>>> sides of the parent/child divide during that era than "She's Leaving >>>> Home." >>>> (True, Lennon's counterpoint adds just the right measure of cynicism.) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Right, but is there an example of that sort of depth of thought in the >>> Wings material? >>> >>> >> >> Actually, I'd say the answer is both "Yes" and "No"...but the "no" is a sort >> of "yes." >> >> I'll address the straightforward "yes" first: I would argue that something >> like "Dear Friend" takes up similar concerns but, of course, on a personal >> level. (I think "Let 'em In" works in a similar, but more global, fashion). >> I think a lot of McCartney's media problem is that his urge toward >> reconciliation and compromise gets consistently read as wimpy and commercial >> and hence un-rock-n-roll - whereas Lennon's more blunt, stubborn approach is >> valorized as the essence of rock attitude. I would say both men's attitudes >> have their place (and both men were certainly capable of the other side), >> but once the image was cemented into place, it was hard to dislodge. Here's >> a thought experiment: Imagine "Imagine" done by McCartney: the song is >> exactly the same (except, perhaps, the recording approach to vocals (no >> treatment) and piano (brighter)...)...what do you think critics would have >> said? I'm pretty sure they would have slammed it to the ground as >> simplistic, treacly, sentimental, naive, saccharine, etc. (It may well BE >> those things). >> >> The more complicated "no" that's a "yes" works like this: I think McCartney >> was rebelling against the excessively self-serious, "heavy" notion of rock >> predominant in the '70s. I think that writing and recording intentionally >> whimsical, catchy, lighter-toned pop songs, he was in fact making a >> statement about the limits of the dead-serious approach (exemplified by John >> on his admittedly brilliant JL/POB album). He was standing up for just >> bloody having a good time with a fun tune. "What's wrong with that?" >> >> And in fact, I'd argue that what might be Paul's most maligned song - "Silly >> Love Songs" - is exactly that: a thoughtful, if subtle, attack at the notion >> that rock music had to be weighty and serious. And in that way - take a deep >> breath - Paul McCartney shared many of the motivations, or at least the >> antipathies, of the early punk rockers. >> >> But not the fashion sense. Or the drug preferences: it's all about Paul's >> well-known preference for pot perhaps... >> >> >> >> -- >> ...Jeff Norman >> >> The Architectural Dance Society >> http://spanghew.wordpress.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 15:03:13 +0000 (UTC) From: michaeljbachman@comcast.net Subject: Re: The Electric Arguments It missed by a year from being a 60's song, but other then then the fact that it was released in 1970 (on the Cat Stevens album Tea For The Tillerman) the song "Father and Son" comes close to theB the criteria listed below for B " S he's Leaving Home" . Michael - ----- Original Message ----- From: "ross" To: "2fs" Cc: "Coughing Vikings" Sent: Monday, December 6, 2010 12:29:09 PM Subject: Re: The Electric Arguments On 10-12-05 03:16 PM, 2fs wrote: > but for example: it may sound saccharine on the surface, but name a > '60s song that looks with more emotional engagement and sympathy at both > sides of the parent/child divide during that era than "She's Leaving Home." > (True, Lennon's counterpoint adds just the right measure of cynicism.) > > > > B B Right, but is there an example of that sort of depth of thought in the Wings material? B I'm seeing it now in his post-Wings output. B It seems now that Macca knows he's not going to get airplay anyway, he's allowed himself to focus on the artistic qualities of his music over mass appeal. B Starting around Flaming Pie, you can hear that aspect of Beatle Paul resurface. B I'd written him off in the 70s, but I'm enjoying some of the newer stuff as much as I ever enjoyed his work with the Beatles. Paul has said it himself in explaining the existence of The Fireman. B He wanted to be able to do something other than crank out pop hits. In a parallel discussion on FB, I suggested listening to Rinse The Raindrops. B That building of tension without release is very Beatlesque. B Slide that in beside the likes of Magneto and Titanium Man and see if you don't feel as if you're being "talked down to" in the latter. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 10:12:52 -0500 From: Jeremy Osner Subject: Re: The Electric Arguments Hm, well after listening to that appearance last night (and a great set it is!) I discover that my memory of it containing "Mother Nature's Son" is mistaken. Anybody know where I can find a tape of RH performing MNS? On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 10:23 PM, Jeremy Osner wrote: > This appearance I mean, on KCRW: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2p7CFjGkco > > On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 10:22 PM, Jeremy Osner wrote: >> Is "Mother Nature's Son" a Beatles song or a Paul song? For some >> reason I always think of it as a Paul solo tune but wasn't it on the >> White Album or something like that? I like that song a lot. Our man >> Robyn's cover of it on one of his UCLA college radio appearances (on >> YouTube and I don't think very hard to find) opened some new insights >> into it for me. >> >> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 10:13 PM, 2fs wrote: >>> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:29 AM, ross wrote: >>> >>>> On 10-12-05 03:16 PM, 2fs wrote: >>>> >>>>> but for example: it may sound saccharine on the surface, but name a >>>>> '60s song that looks with more emotional engagement and sympathy at both >>>>> sides of the parent/child divide during that era than "She's Leaving >>>>> Home." >>>>> (True, Lennon's counterpoint adds just the right measure of cynicism.) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Right, but is there an example of that sort of depth of thought in the >>>> Wings material? >>>> >>> >>> >>> Actually, I'd say the answer is both "Yes" and "No"...but the "no" is a sort >>> of "yes." >>> >>> I'll address the straightforward "yes" first: I would argue that something >>> like "Dear Friend" takes up similar concerns but, of course, on a personal >>> level. (I think "Let 'em In" works in a similar, but more global, fashion). >>> I think a lot of McCartney's media problem is that his urge toward >>> reconciliation and compromise gets consistently read as wimpy and commercial >>> and hence un-rock-n-roll - whereas Lennon's more blunt, stubborn approach is >>> valorized as the essence of rock attitude. I would say both men's attitudes >>> have their place (and both men were certainly capable of the other side), >>> but once the image was cemented into place, it was hard to dislodge. Here's >>> a thought experiment: Imagine "Imagine" done by McCartney: the song is >>> exactly the same (except, perhaps, the recording approach to vocals (no >>> treatment) and piano (brighter)...)...what do you think critics would have >>> said? I'm pretty sure they would have slammed it to the ground as >>> simplistic, treacly, sentimental, naive, saccharine, etc. (It may well BE >>> those things). >>> >>> The more complicated "no" that's a "yes" works like this: I think McCartney >>> was rebelling against the excessively self-serious, "heavy" notion of rock >>> predominant in the '70s. I think that writing and recording intentionally >>> whimsical, catchy, lighter-toned pop songs, he was in fact making a >>> statement about the limits of the dead-serious approach (exemplified by John >>> on his admittedly brilliant JL/POB album). He was standing up for just >>> bloody having a good time with a fun tune. "What's wrong with that?" >>> >>> And in fact, I'd argue that what might be Paul's most maligned song - "Silly >>> Love Songs" - is exactly that: a thoughtful, if subtle, attack at the notion >>> that rock music had to be weighty and serious. And in that way - take a deep >>> breath - Paul McCartney shared many of the motivations, or at least the >>> antipathies, of the early punk rockers. >>> >>> But not the fashion sense. Or the drug preferences: it's all about Paul's >>> well-known preference for pot perhaps... >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ...Jeff Norman >>> >>> The Architectural Dance Society >>> http://spanghew.wordpress.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 23:10:43 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: Re: The Electric Arguments On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 9:12 AM, Jeremy Osner wrote: > Hm, well after listening to that appearance last night (and a great > set it is!) I discover that my memory of it containing "Mother > Nature's Son" is mistaken. Anybody know where I can find a tape of RH > performing MNS? > Dunno about a "tape" ;-)...but he did cover it, along with the rest of the White Album, at one of the MSF benefits a few years back. I don't have a link handy - someone else probably does. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.wordpress.com ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V18 #215 ********************************