In a world where songs containing lines like "If ya like it then ya should'a put a ring on it" or "My humps, my humps, my lovely lady lumps," repeated 50 MILLION times in three to four minutes are hits, PLEASE Paul, keep rocking.
Alan McGee: Paul McCartney should retire
- Thread starter Dusty Ayres
- Start date
Dusty Ayres
Commodore
Nobody's saying that Paul can't still rock & roll at 60+ (all due to the vegetarian diet, BTW!) but songwriting is the issue here. As I said before, if Paul's not writing up to the standard he had as a member of the Beatles, then guess what? It's time to retire.
Not much of a problem with that, either, but as I said above and before, the older artist has to be up to it, and then some. Otherwise, it's all wankery and nothing else.
BTW, how come people don't have this kind of care and respect for George Lucas? Everybody's down on him because of the prequels-why not be this critical with Paul?
John said worse about Paul, and the Rolling Stones, when he was alive. Also, he had some choice words to say about this culture of nostalgia before his death:
Again, strange that nobody at this board has that attitude about Lady Gaga or anybody else that's new; they just spend all of their time listening to classic rock and not discovering anything new to listen to-mostly because of the nostalgia bath that North America's in all of the time.
Says the people who knock all current rock/pop with the saying 'It's all crap now' without getting off of their asses and checking around their town/city for local music scenes or music festivals that would give them more than the same old/same old Classic Rot they've heard already a million gazillion times already...
When it's all mediocre and not up to the quality of what was before it's time to stop-the same message said by people on this board and elsewhere on the 'Net about George Lucas, Brannon & Braga, Joss Whedon, and other TV/comic book/movie series showrunners. Except that nobody has a problem saying that about them-just Paul McCartney. Well guess what, somebody just said it. Only now, nobody can deal. Even Elvis Costello said that about Paul back when he and Paul were writing songs for Flowers In The Dirt, or something similar-Paul is just not challenging himself enough. When something like that is said enough about an artist, especially an older one, then it is time for said artist to stop.
What? Was that written in the 70s? (And even then, it wasn't really true.) Sure, there's also more or less dumb fun present in his work (I don't think that's a bad thing, by the way, sometimes you want something like 'Junior's Farm' or 'Girls School') but this is the guy whose albums tend to not sound alike, who's always trying out something new. There aren't many artists like that, I think.
Well, obviously, I'm a fan but I am critical. I don't think that everything that Paul has done is great. There are songs and albums I despise with a passion (perhaps unfairly). But I can't take anyone seriously who claims that stuff like 'Chaos and Creation in the Backyard' and 'Electric Arguments' is dumb fun. People may not like what he does, and that's fine, I don't like plenty of bands other people fancy, but absolute statements like that just make me laugh.
Just letting you know what people think, OK?
Managers are not the ones doing the creating, they are the ones doing the managing of said creators and artists. That's all there is to it. And this guy is not just a manager as much as his is a founder of a legendary record company-I'd say he knows a lot more than you about what's cool and what's not.
Mostly because they overplay the same stuff that they did before, so much so that nobody cares about the new stuff they've got out now-something mentioned by the Barenaked Ladies in the song "Box Set' on the album Gordon. Why don't these Classic Rot stations play the new albums by the artists in question? Because they're too busy pandering to nostalgia-addicted North Americans like Bob & June Baby Boom to see that they could make money by pleasing younger people too (I mean 20-somethings who aren't addicted to pop music, but the genre of music known as 'alternative' or Britpop, which is still being made now, only not as popular as both styles used to be back in the 1990's due to the ascendancy of Britney Spears & Co./the American Idol bunch in the media.) That's the real reason why!
There was silly/stupid shit in the '50's, '60's, '70's, '80's, and '90's-that doesn't dampen people's love for the best of those past decades in music, does it? That also doesn't give Paul an excuse to slack off or get weak, though-if he isn't doing his best, time to stop for a while, like John did. Either that or do a one time only reunion of the surviving Beatles (or their sons, since John & George are gone) with a playlist of the Beatles songs, and then after that concert, get on with some new music (suggested by Canadian critic Peter Howell back in the early '90's back when George was still alive-way too late to happen now that George's gone.)
I love that song, BTW, and most of Paul's oeuvre, but I can see the point of people like Jimmy Guterman and Owen O’Donnell if they feel that Paul has done better, and can do better than that-that's the same thing said about George Lucas and the prequel trilogy, why can't it be said about Paul McCartney? Why is Paul exempt from criticism? Plus, the song got satirized (or dissed) by Eugene Levy as Bobby Bitman on an episode of SCTV ('Some people say the world has too many silly Polish love songs') possibly to prove how bad the song was, and how Paul would never do anything like that when he was a Beatle. Conversely (and although I don't like it) what's wrong with singing about having big breasts? Rod Stewart sang about a woman having 'Hot Legs' , so Fergie can sing about her having big 'humps'-big deal all around.
Last edited:
Bull. Shit.
Yes, Paul McCartney is probably not challenging himself as much as he used or maybe Joss Whedon isn't as witty has he used to be or maybe George Lucas has exaggerated his faults as a film maker in his later years, but that still does not mean that they should retire.
People should be doing what they love, even if they suck at it, for as long as they are able. I will still continue playing music all of my life and I am not as brilliant as a half-assed Paul McCartney, but that will not stop me. If people are getting emotional about sub-par output for an artist that they like, then that is their problem. It does not lessen the value of the earlier work.
And it you applied that same standard to the REST of the music industry--if they can't write and create music to the same standard as the Beatles, they should retire--you'd pretty much shut down the music world.
Here's what it ALL finally boils down to, chum. Ya don't LIKE Paul, DON'T LISTEN TO HIM.
I just don't get where some egotists get off thinking THEIR personal likes/dislikes ought to decide how the REST of the world functions. If you don't LIKE something, don't PARTICIPATE. Whining that no one ELSE should enjoy it either and that it should all just "stop and go away" because of YOUR personal whims is childish and selfish.
Alan who.
Well that's simply not true. Captain Euphoria, aka Christopher R. Mihm, is a director with five feature films to his credit so far, including the upcoming Destination: Outer Space.
Sorry to blatantly prove you wrong, but you really should check your facts before making such erroneous statements in public.
What? Isn't the reason for this thread a proof that Paul is not exempt from criticism? People have been saying this sort of thing about Paul forever. It's a kind of 'in' opinion to have, anyway.
I don't really get what you're trying to say here, Dusty Ayres. Paul should retire because people say his music is mediocre? Who gets to decide that? Do we have to reach a certain number of people? There are many people who don't think it's mediocre. I think he's still putting out great albums. In a way, he's much more innovative and sharper than at some points during his career. And even if it weren't so, why should someone else get to decide about his future? No one's forcing you to buy the albums or even listen to them since they (sadly) get pretty much no airplay at all. I don't wish Lou Reed would retire even though I think he won't be as good as he was in the late 60s and early 70s. I'm glad he's still around.
Criticism is fine but it should be more substantial and more precise than what's been quoted in this thread. I've been critical of Paul at times but at the end of the day, his music means more to me than that of most other artists/bands I cherish.
I also think you're fighting out a fight from somewhere else here, throwing everyone who's disagreed with McGee together with Classic Rock fanatics you seem to have had a run-in with before.
When I was a teen, in the 80's, I absolutely HATED the Beetles. Couldn't stand them, the music, all that. After age 30, I revisted some of their music, and even heard some songs never before played on the radio. I have an appreciation with how they evolved and influenced pop culture. Their music, compared to today's, is no comparison.
Dusty Ayres
Commodore
My 'personal whims' have nothing to do with it-as I said, I love Paul McCartney, but ifhe's making crap, he should rethink it, or stop playing music (and I'll say that about anybody including Madonna!
)And I'm not the 'egotist'; the guy in the article is!
I think that this broadside is being said because people are getting tired about hearing how great the Beatles were (which was said in a post months ago.) and now maybe this guy wants to start a backlash against the new Beatlemania that now exists. Or maybe he was joking-who knows?
But my other things I said still stand.
Most of the bands that he managed were quite good, and he helped to run an influential record company similar to Stiff Records and Factory Records (home of the Manchester 'Madchester' sound) that made up the sounds of the '80's and 90's. Just because you didn't hear about them or the music scenes they had a part in doesn't mean the music's no good.
Last edited:
Dusty Ayres
Commodore
I might be 'picking a fight', but I doubt it. And even if I was doing so, you'd know about it. Plus, I'd be in the right, mostly because nostalgia is too prevalent in North American society as it is, and is being used as a crutch and a drug to avoid dealing with the present and the problems of the present (Nostalgia: a Sport for the Privileged
As I said, IF Paul's making mediocre stuff, he should be called on it, and brought to account, just like everybody else I've mentioned previously. I did not say myself that Paul's new stuff was bad. The guy in the article did. Big difference.
Also as I said before, the reason Paul's albums don't get as much airplay as before is because the stations that play his old stuff won't play his new stuff ('And when I try to do something new, all they want is 1973.'-Box Set by The Barenaked Ladies). All that 1050 Chum AM or Q107 FM in Toronto will play, for example is just his old stuff. His new stuff? Not a chance, even though fans who listen to classic rock stations like these two might want to hear that their hero has new stuff out.
And really, I don't know how much more substantial you can get than 'I think Paul's new stuff sucks and that he should get better or quit.' Again, I'm not saying that, the guy in the article is. And he might be saying it because he's probably sick of all of the 'The Beatles are back and better than anything out there now' hype.
You are overlooking the fact that the reason stations don't play his newer stuff is because of idiots called Consultants. Said idiots tell the station what the listening public (allegedly) wants to hear, and the stations, after having paid an exorbitant amount of money, do what the Consultants say.
One station here, in Oklahoma City, changed its format to 70s/80s, and I'm hearing some 80's tunes I haven't heard since high school. I'm loving it. Meanwhile, the Classic Rock station I typically listen to, plays too much Grateful Dead and Rolling Stones -- two groups I cannot stand --, followed by an overabundance of Led Zeplin (and this doesn't account for the 7pm-8pm slot when the station plays "Get the Led Out").
The blame is not on the people, it's the companies.
Dusty Ayres
Commodore
^^^Which is why I've stopped listening to radio, and only listen to music on my iTunes or Winamp players. And I suggest that most of you should do the same-let's starve the greedy asshole station owners and the high priced consultants they hire of money and any power they have.
I now download songs via the iTunes store and buy CD's at HMV or Sunrise Records, and I buy/rip music to my computer to listen to. Let's start a revolution against them.
I now download songs via the iTunes store and buy CD's at HMV or Sunrise Records, and I buy/rip music to my computer to listen to. Let's start a revolution against them.
No, he didn't, at least not in the article you quoted from. He just said that musicians should retire at 40, which I still think is absurd. That statement has nothing to do with 'calling people out on mediocre stuff' (how dare they make music I don't like!
).Nope, he didn't. See above.
Well, tough. But it's speculation, anyway. My guess is he just wanted to say something outrageous. It's not very well thought through.
And frankly, if you look at the charts and what gets airplay (and that's what people are aware of for the most part) I'm not surprised people say that. The drive for innovation that happened in the 60s is sorely missing today. The music industry is playing it very safe.
I'd really love to hear a band or an artist that would awe me as much and as often as the Beatles did and do, but it hasn't happened, yet.
Just as people might be too lazy to look up new music by bands that aren't Top 40, they are also often too lazy to look for new releases by older bands. McCartney has had a few decent selections on the last couple of albums, and his last two have been pretty decent. There have been some really good recent albums put out by bands that peaked in popularity 15 or more years ago. Yet, you wouldn't know about 'em if you waited for the radio or some other big arrow pointing you to the music.
If we had rockers over 40 retiring all the time, we would have missed out on a lot of good music over the years. It isn't like a band of 25-year-olds aren't allowed to make music just because McCartney released a new CD again.
If we had rockers over 40 retiring all the time, we would have missed out on a lot of good music over the years. It isn't like a band of 25-year-olds aren't allowed to make music just because McCartney released a new CD again.
Dusty Ayres
Commodore
That's because you're looking in the wrong places, and thinking about the past, only. Expecting everybody to sing as if it were the '60's or '70's isn't going to work anymore, mostly because the musical landscape's evolved beyond just the Beatles and the '60s-exactly the thing that Lennon was talking about in the article I just posted, and probably the reason he didn't ever want to bring the Beatles back for any reunion concerts of any kind for any amount of money. He expected the '80s and the '90s (had he lived) to be different-not the same as the '60s. Not to be hearing classic rock predominate all radio and mess up the musical landscape because somebody on Madison Avenue decided that Bob & June Baby Boom had money to burn and thus should be catered to with their own custom-made musical format (partly) consisting of Beatles and other groups of the first British Invasion. He would be very disappointed if he knew that all people could hear would be the Fab Four and nothing else. And that's what's happening now, in the 21st Century, because people are way too lazy to either find out what's going on now, having let the problems of the present crush their spirits enough to be escaping to the past.
If it were only Bob & June Baby Boom, I wouldn't mind. But its everybody else as well, including some younger people in their 30's as well, who should be making and participating in their own culture in the here and now and their own new world grooving to older music simply because their father and mothers and their uncles and aunties have a 'everything was cooler then/the Beatles make the Clash look like trash' meme.
As I said before, artists who have the same fire are there-you have to look for them and support them, and listen to them-not just regurgitate past music and culture in a new decade because you're not too sure what they sound like. Either that or consider giving up rock and all of its derivatives and sticking with classical, jazz, or country-let the current and next generations get a crack at the bandwidth, media attention, and retail shelves (and I don't mean the pop stars either-there's more to the music scene than Britney & Co., or Lady Gaga & Co.) Your town or city most likely has alternative newspapers in the tabloid format which contain info on what's going on in the city entertainment-wise pick them up and use them. Find out what's going on musically and socially, while you're still relatively young and capable. Give the past a rest.
As for radio, this old article says it all:
Do you know JACK? Sure you do. The ads for Toronto's newest radio station are all over the subway: "Playing what we want" goes the slogan, with the station's logo bursting out of a jack-in-the-box, implying that the station's programmers are out of control! The posters list off what kind of crazy musical combinations you can expect: Tom Petty! Springsteen! The Cars! Meat Loaf! Now, proudly advertising Meat Loaf as a selling point in 2003 may constitute a bold, revolutionary act, but really, JACK FM is just the latest addition to a radio dial littered with microscopically focused niche stations boasting unintentionally ironic slogans that only draw attention to how rigid, formulaic and safe their playlists truly are.
JACK joins the likes of MIX 99 (whose mainstream-rock mix rarely veers more than a centimeter or two from the middle of the road), Q107 (whose definition of "Classic Rock" is flexible enough to include a regular rotation of Saga records), to the worst offender, 102.1 The Edge, whose conception of edgy music begins with the first Our Lady Peace album, ends with the latest Evanescence single, and wedges every last fake brow-pierced, phony-angst nü-metal mook into the sliver between. The irony is that JACK's former incarnation, KISS 92.5, while adhering to a top 40 format, managed to achieve something resembling true variety, bouncing from Eminem to Destiny's Child to Coldplay.
Now, for those of us who routinely seek musical guidance from college radio or CBC's Brave New Waves, and who spend more at Rotate This and Soundscapes than on food and shelter, the relentlessly uninspiring state of commercial radio is a topic as tired as the insincerity of televangelists. But as much as we are loath to admit it, radio is still an important cultural arbiter. For the casual music fan -- someone who buys maybe 10 CDs a year, simply based on liking something they heard on the radio or Much Music -- radio airplay represents validation, in the same way hipsters rely on New York or London to tell them what's cool. And more often than not, radio assumes the masses are brain-dead automatons incapable of appreciating anything beyond whatever narrowly defined genre parameters the station's corporate bosses deem most profitable.
The troubled state of the music industry is often portrayed as a battle between greedy major labels and unscrupulous music fans stealing music online. While the former portrays the latter's actions as cold-hearted theft, the question is rarely asked: did radio make them do it? The keys to any industry's growth are brand (in this case, band) loyalty and regeneration through the introduction of new products. The music industry is unique in that it relies on radio (instead of traditional advertising methods) to broadcast new-product information to consumers. Radio is failing them. As a result, those consumers have had to seek alternative outlets -- e.g., Kazaa -- to get that information.
Each week eye receives, on average, 75 CD's submitted for review, ranging from superstar acts like Radiohead down to indie techno artists burning beats off their laptops. This in itself is just a fraction of what's produced every week. Contrary to the music industry's doomsday prognostications, the actual amount of music being created has increased as the means of production (laptops, four-track recorders) and distribution (internet mail order, for example) have become more accessible.
Strangely, radio's response to this proliferation has been to become more conservative, and in doing so, it does a disservice to the music industry. Retro-minded stations like JACK and Q107 do nothing to promote the continued survival of the industry by playing songs we've heard a million times before from records we bought 20 years ago. CanCon regulations, initially devised to expose emerging homegrown talent, can now be satisfied by dropping the Hip or side one of 2112. And given that the careers of most Edge-endorsed alterna-rockers last about as long as their target listener's first sexual encounter, it's not exactly inspiring band loyalty among a new generation of music fans. Anyone remember Eve 6? Mudvayne? No wonder kids today would rather buy video games.
We're not saying these stations should scrap their Zeppelin records and play nothing but godspeed you! black emperor, but there's no reason a Neil Young fan wouldn't appreciate The Flaming Lips, or a Coldplay fan wouldn't dig the emotional space-pop of Broken Social Scene. There's also no reason one of these stations couldn't just up and transform themselves into a station that could play both The Rolling Stones and The Constantines. As JACK (formerly KISS) and CHUM (formerly sports, formerly rock) have made abundantly clear, it takes very little time or thought to repackage.
Yes, radio is ultimately a business, concerned with the bottom line more than giving unknown artists exposure. But given the limited channels for quality new music on Toronto radio, soon these stations won't have any nostalgia left to sell.
Last edited: