Members tbry Posted June 11, 2016 Members Share Posted June 11, 2016 He does song writing like anybody else...go figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members AlamoJoe Posted June 11, 2016 Members Share Posted June 11, 2016 Cool link! I remember several years ago he did a TV thing where he actually recorded a song, all by himself, in front of a small audience. Layed down all the tracks one at a time, playing all the instruments, using a four track recorder. In about 20 minutes. Fascinating.His first two solo albums are still my favorites of all his post Beatles work. Did it all himself with some help from Linda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mikeo Posted June 11, 2016 Members Share Posted June 11, 2016 nice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tbry Posted June 11, 2016 Author Members Share Posted June 11, 2016 Cool link! I remember several years ago he did a TV thing where he actually recorded a song, all by himself, in front of a small audience. Layed down all the tracks one at a time, playing all the instruments, using a four track recorder. In about 20 minutes. Fascinating. His first two solo albums are still my favorites of all his post Beatles work. Did it all himself with some help from Linda. Yeah, what I find interesting is that the same applies for him as it does me or anyone else...play around with some chord progressions and find some words to go with it...now the big difference is talent. He has a uncanny knack for melodies and lyrics. I never will have that. Plus I am a novice. He worked himself into an icon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members AlamoJoe Posted June 11, 2016 Members Share Posted June 11, 2016 Yeah, what I find interesting is that the same applies for him as it does me or anyone else...play around with some chord progressions and find some words to go with it...now the big difference is talent. He has a uncanny knack for melodies and lyrics. I never will have that. Plus I am a novice. He worked himself into an icon. Well I'm a novice as well. The thing is, I think he long ago realized where he lives musically, and he's never strayed far from there.His years with The Beatles were groundbreaking. Since then, he's never traveled as far away from his comfort zone in so far as compositions. Oh he's had forays into areas such as the Oratorio and such, but he's never gotten too far away from the style of song he writes. His stuff is, well, comfortable. He rocks pretty good still onstage. He knows his craft and his limitations and he works well within them. He'd have probably been a musician no matter what. Had The Beatles never happened he'd still have become a musical force. It's interesting to wonder how and what would have lifted him...probably not to the heights he reached with The fabs...But he'd have still become a musical force no matter I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nat whilk II Posted June 12, 2016 Members Share Posted June 12, 2016 I'm taking a risk just posting to this thread as I'm a massive McCartney fan from the original days of the original Beatles 45s. But I'll try to keep it short... I Saw Her Standing There, McCartney's tune, is song #1 on Beatle album #1, and right off, you hear two of McCartney's biggest strengths instrumentally - he's got perfect timing, and he's got this fluid, natural melodic thing. Finesse. And the voice on top of that - it's just not fair! So let's go straight to his weaknesses and admit them right off - he's not the greatest lyricist ('tho at times he finds gold) and he can be soooo sentimental and corny. Ok, done. But it's interesting that, in spite of his sheer performance talent advantage over the rest of the Beatles, he's never had John's magic ingredient, which is hard to define, but I'll call it "directness". John could pull from the deepest emotional sources and distill it all unmanipulated into lines and melodies in a direct way that leaves Paul way behind 99% of the time. People often call John's advantage "soul" but I don't use that term - "Soul" music had a lot of showmanship and charm, which are Paul's strengths - but John's depth was rawer and more direct, more piercing. Paul's material always sounds one step removed from his deeper self - oh, it's still great, but it's a "made thing" not a "gut thing". Almost in a contradictory way, Paul has always been mad for immediacy and experimentation. Like Jackson Pollock paintings - just throw it out, don't think too much, let it splatter where it will - no apologies. Oh, he'll work on something at length - but his first goal is that spontaneous feel, that "tossed it off" thing, that "just came to me" vibe. It's like he values that quality so much, he doesn't even admit his own hard work and technical prowess. He likes to present himself as so very non-technical. I don't believe it for a minute. But I do believe he never stops listening for and desiring the the kind of music that bypasses the listener's critical and mental routes, and goes straight to the heart (and other visceral elements) in an instant. But it's not the deepest, rawest heart he reaches - Paul reaches the heart that feels charm and hope and pleasure and heartache and other "me too!" sorts of emotions. He'll hint at the deeper things, yes - but John pulls them up and lays them right out, whether you like it or not. Stuff that you hesitate saying "me too" about in public. I get bored with Paul and his surface-ness at times. I get downright sick of John at times with his "me me me me and my pain". The rest of the time I just sit at their feet amazed over and over again, into five decades now, still going stronger than ever. nat whilk ii Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members AlamoJoe Posted June 12, 2016 Members Share Posted June 12, 2016 Great post Nat! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members davd_indigo Posted June 13, 2016 Members Share Posted June 13, 2016 I'm taking a risk just posting to this thread as I'm a massive McCartney fan from the original days of the original Beatles 45s. But I'll try to keep it short... I get bored with Paul and his surface-ness at times. I get downright sick of John at times with his "me me me me and my pain". The rest of the time I just sit at their feet amazed over and over again, into five decades now, still going stronger than ever. nat whilk ii Your observations may all be correct. I don't know. In my view the Beatles lifted up even their most mediocre material by working it over. I'm talking about their arrangements. "Rain" was maybe dashed off in 10 minutes. But it's the treatment that makes it special. Paul's inventive eastern sounding bass lines, the droning sounding guitar (sounds a bit like a banjo to me). around 50 seconds into the song and their vocal harmonies. IMO this song is ridiculously low in content. But I love their recording with all its invention. This goes for most of their recordings. The attention to details in their arrangements, their use of the recording studio as an instrument. Their inventions with vocal harmony really made their music shine IMO. I didn't notice this level of invention in any of the Beatles solo work. Maybe I'm missing something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nat whilk II Posted June 13, 2016 Members Share Posted June 13, 2016 Your observations may all be correct. I don't know. In my view the Beatles lifted up even their most mediocre material by working it over. I'm talking about their arrangements. "Rain" was maybe dashed off in 10 minutes. But it's the treatment that makes it special. Paul's inventive eastern sounding bass lines, the droning sounding guitar (sounds a bit like a banjo to me). around 50 seconds into the song and their vocal harmonies. IMO this song is ridiculously low in content. But I love their recording with all its invention. This goes for most of their recordings. The attention to details in their arrangements, their use of the recording studio as an instrument. Their inventions with vocal harmony really made their music shine IMO. I didn't notice this level of invention in any of the Beatles solo work. Maybe I'm missing something. Agreed, definitely. Geoff Emerick had a lot to do with the post-Rubber Soul sound of the Beatles, and Rain/Paperback Writer were two of the earlier tracks he worked on - he was more willing to experiment in the studio, and definitely had a genius for engineering a new sound for them. Tomorrow Never Knows was the first song Emerick engineered - how's that for a first-time effort? And yes, the after-Beatles material also mostly left behind those tight, inventive vocal harmonies, too. George Martin had a lot to do with helping them with part-writing for the harmonies. Those great harmonies were more from their era of pop hits and less from their album-rock later period. Except for Abbey Road, which had them working together like old times for a short period. nat whilk ii Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.