Alan McGee: Paul McCartney should retire

[Servo]

Alan McGee talks shit. I'm willing to bet that this call for McCartney's retirement is nothing more than a piss-poor attempt by McGee to stir up some controversy, and get his name in the news again.

I'm no big fan of McCartney post-Beatles, but the guy is free to make music until he's too frail to put pen to paper as far as I'm concerned. Alan McGee has just secured his position as a prick in my mind, and I've no time for anyone who agrees with the fucking idiocy he's spouting.

 

[Dusty Ayres]

Alan McGee talks shit. I'm willing to bet that this call for McCartney's retirement is nothing more than a piss-poor attempt by McGee to stir up some controversy, and get his name in the news again.

I'm no big fan of McCartney post-Beatles, but the guy is free to make music until he's too frail to put pen to paper as far as I'm concerned. Alan McGee has just secured his position as a prick in my mind, and I've no time for anyone who agrees with the fucking idiocy he's spouting.

Alan McGee is just speaking his mind, Servo-just like you do when you post on topics here. And he might be right too; is Macca just coasting on his fame and past accomplishments? Or is he still doing great work? If it's the former, then maybe he should retire, as he really does not need the money and the vicissitudes of touring. But if it's the latter, then he needs to 'get better or go home' as they say in the USA.

I see McGee as saying 'The Emperor has no clothes' rather than being a prick with a big mouth. In this, he's no different than any other critic who would be reviewing his work, in papers great and small, in blogs far and wide. Most people consider critics to be not much in the grand scheme of things-I know that I do most of the time-but they do what they must do. And a lot of them have probably said the same thing about Macca as well, although a bit more eloquently.

Although I deeply respect Paul McCartney as an artist, even I have to wonder if not only McGee but also Peter Howell of the Toronto Star is right sometimes; is his best work behind him? And should he continue?

 

[Nerys Myk]

So what if it is? Let him tour to the day he dies.

 

[Zachary Smith]

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.

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.

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!

Here's the turd floating in your soup-bowl, dude--"IF" Paul is making "crap"--in WHOSE estimation? There IS no independent objective arbiter of "quality music". It's a SUBJECTIVE CONSIDERATION. WHO decides it's "crap" enough that he should quit? You? Me? The Dali Lama? Ringo? How about we check with Pete Best?

My POINT is one man's "crap" is another man's sweet petunia. Someone is still BUYING Paul's music or the Companies would stop putting them out and giving him contracts. I doubt they're LOSING money on his work. SOMEBODY likes his music. Enough somebodies that he keeps getting paid for it or he'd have to put together his own label and release the music himself, likely at a loss.

So WHO decides it's "crap" and he should stop. I, personally don't begrudge ANYONE putting a creative endeavor before the public for scrutiny and approval. Some of what get's put--some of which is quite successful BTW---I personally think is complete and utter rubbish (see my earlier reference to Beyonce's crapfest). I question the tastes of people who LIKE it but I'll stand by any artist, would-be or wanna-bee to put their work before the public because it takes some guts to do that. I can't imagine telling anyone they "shouldn't" try, even though I can and have asked any number of people if they are INSANE for liking the "work" some people produce.

But my point in the end is that absent and objective arbiter there IS NO barometer for when someone is producing "crap" other than the tastes of an audience and as long as there is someone who WANTS to hear, see the music or work, as long as there IS an audience--ANY audience, no one else has the rank, right or privilege to say an artist "shouldn't" be producing. If he does, he presumes too much.

 

[Sci]

Telling an artist that he should stop making art, even if you think his work is not as good as it was in his prime, is a horrible thing to do.

 

[Pingfah]

Although I deeply respect Paul McCartney as an artist, even I have to wonder if not only McGee but also Peter Howell of the Toronto Star is right sometimes; is his best work behind him? And should he continue?

Right now, in my opinion, his best work is behind him. No, that does not mean he should give up. Lots of people have pulled great work out after periods of stagnation.

If people don't like his records they don't have to buy them, but telling artists they should stop being artists is futile. I would have thought that having run a record label, McGee would have a slightly better understanding of sorts of people that have helped make him a success.

 

[Kirby]

Someone should tell this McGee douchebag that if he doesn't like Paul McCartney he doesn't have to buy his albums.
The market will tell Paul when it's time to stop making music. If enough people stop buying his albums, then the record companies will stop giving him recording contacts. Until that time he can make, publish, and perform as much music as he wants and Alan McGee, the briantrust of all things musical, can suck it.
That said, I haven't really enjoyed a McCartney album since Flaming Pie about 12 years ago, I didn't like that last Who album either, but I don't think they need to retire because of it.

 

[Othello]

I think Alan McGee has his head up his ass.

 

[ITL]

There's no reason for any musician to retire if they don't want to. Even if nobody in the entire fucking world likes their music. As long as it makes them happy and doesn't affect anyone in an adverse manner (MACCA MADE MY PUPPY CRY BY NOT RETIRING!), I say play on.

 

[Count Zero]

Man, Dusty Ayres, you assume a lot about the people who disagree with you. It would be almost entertaining if it didn't come off as so condescending. You don't know me and you don't know what other music I listen to. And those local artists you love so much - with your mediocrity rule in effect, nearly all of them would have to retire.

Also, stopping to listen to music one loves just because it happens to be from the past strikes me as pretty stupid. Why should I deprive myself of something I like, just because some minor property of it upsets you? Should I also stop listening to Bach and Händel, reading Shakespeare and Goethe? This arbitrary cut-off point is ridiculous.

 

[CoveTom]

Here's the turd floating in your soup-bowl, dude--"IF" Paul is making "crap"--in WHOSE estimation? There IS no independent objective arbiter of "quality music". It's a SUBJECTIVE CONSIDERATION. WHO decides it's "crap" enough that he should quit? You? Me? The Dali Lama? Ringo? How about we check with Pete Best?

It seems to me that since the music industry is a business, as long as an artist's albums and concerts are selling sufficiently to be profitable, then that's a pretty good indication that they have been judged by the public at large to not be making crap, and certainly not to be ready for retirement.

Now, I don't think that ticket sales always equate with quality by any means. But it does say a lot about what a significant portion of the public thinks about a particular artist.

I'm not sure where this attitude is coming from that if someone is below some arbitrary measure of quality, they don't deserve to be writing or performing music any more. Anyone can do anything they damn well please with their careers, and if they can produce enough interest for someone to want to bankroll it, so much the better.

 

[RobertScorpio]

McGee, credited as being one of the architects of so-called “Cool Britannia” and who managed such “Britpop” bands as Oasis and Primal Scream, has called on all rock stars to retire at 40 and singled out Sir Paul for particular criticism.
“Music should be like football,” he declares. “Once you turn 40 you should become a manager or get lost. You don’t have 66-year-old football players - there’s a reason for that. The man I was at 24 managing The Jesus and Mary Chain is not the same person at 49.“

Of the former Beatle, he says: “McCartney should retire. John Lennon is probably firing bullets from another dimension as we speak. Just give in, Paul.”

Alan McGee: Paul McCartney should retire

What a complete and total Moron. Hey, I just Sir Paul on TV on Thanksgiving,and he put on a great show. I saw Barry Manilow around the same time in Vegas, and so did he. And ELTON JOHN rocked on the Grammys just three days ago...

Rob

 

[jadcox@mindspring.com]

I think Alan McGee has his head up his ass.

Much more nicely put than what I was going to say, but yes.

 

[Yassim]

I hate to join the mob side of this "discussion".

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 find it strange that you want to band a group of people together for a cause, but when people band together to buy Paul McCartney's music, it's because they're deluded. Either the will of the people counts for something, or it doesn't.

Alan McGee is just speaking his mind, Servo-just like you do when you post on topics here. And he might be right too; is Macca just coasting on his fame and past accomplishments? ...I see McGee as saying 'The Emperor has no clothes' rather than being a prick with a big mouth. In this, he's no different than any other critic who would be reviewing his work, in papers great and small, in blogs far and wide.

No - the role of a critic is to point out what works and what doesn't. He can, as a critic, say "This music sucks." It seems more than a little hipster d-bag to say "... and because his best days are behind him, he should quit."

Although I deeply respect Paul McCartney as an artist, even I have to wonder if not only McGee but also Peter Howell of the Toronto Star is right sometimes; is his best work behind him? And should he continue?

The first question is more than fair. The second is not.

 

[Aragorn]

Man, Dusty Ayres, you assume a lot about the people who disagree with you. It would be almost entertaining if it didn't come off as so condescending.

Of course he's being condescending. He found someone who shares the same opinion as him, and now he's going to fight tooth and nail to tell everyone that opinion is a fact, even with the false football analogy.

 

[RobertScorpio]

Man, Dusty Ayres, you assume a lot about the people who disagree with you. It would be almost entertaining if it didn't come off as so condescending.

Of course he's being condescending. He found someone who shares the same opinion as him, and now he's going to fight tooth and nail to tell everyone that opinion is a fact, even with the false football analogy.

No one is forcing anyone to buy anyone's albums. If Paul McCartney or Elton want to sing until they are 100 years old then who are we to tell them no.

Rob

 

[Zachary Smith]

Man, Dusty Ayres, you assume a lot about the people who disagree with you. It would be almost entertaining if it didn't come off as so condescending.

Of course he's being condescending. He found someone who shares the same opinion as him, and now he's going to fight tooth and nail to tell everyone that opinion is a fact, even with the false football analogy.

No one is forcing anyone to buy anyone's albums. If Paul McCartney or Elton want to sing until they are 100 years old then who are we to tell them no.

Rob

Absolutely. It's one thing to say, "I don't want to hear it." It's another thing entirely to say, "I don't want to hear it so no one ELSE should get to hear it either."

 

[RobertScorpio]

Of course he's being condescending. He found someone who shares the same opinion as him, and now he's going to fight tooth and nail to tell everyone that opinion is a fact, even with the false football analogy.

No one is forcing anyone to buy anyone's albums. If Paul McCartney or Elton want to sing until they are 100 years old then who are we to tell them no.

Rob

Absolutely. It's one thing to say, "I don't want to hear it." It's another thing entirely to say, "I don't want to hear it so no one ELSE should get to hear it either."

Exactly...what do they want us to listen too? What they listen too? They need to move to a country like CHINA or IRAN where they can be told what to listen to..might save them brain energy.

Rob

 

[Aragorn]

Absolutely. It's one thing to say, "I don't want to hear it." It's another thing entirely to say, "I don't want to hear it so no one ELSE should get to hear it either."

Sounds exactly like a certain someone on this board when Enterprise was still on the air.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Absolutely. It's one thing to say, "I don't want to hear it." It's another thing entirely to say, "I don't want to hear it so no one ELSE should get to hear it either."

Sounds exactly like a certain someone on this board when Enterprise was still on the air.

Just one?