Monday, July 26, 2010
Cream Calendar Live and Let Live: In Defense of Paul McCartney, Who Plays Bridgestone Arena Tonight
Posted by Adam Gold on Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:27 AM
(You might also be interested in Bill Demain's Scene feature on McCartney and Wings' 1974 working vacation in Nashville.)
In previewing Sir Paul's Nashville debut tonight at Bridgestone Arena in this week's dead-tree edition of the Scene, I speculate on why so many people hate on Macca, despite his overwhelmingly positive contribution to modern music and incomprehensible influence on melodic construction. Obviously I get the whole hating sacred cows thing, but I still don't know what the convincing argument is that justifies people hating on Paul McCartney the same way they hate on Sting. Take a look the piece after the jump, and if you feel like you have that convincing argument I'm looking for, post it in the comments. I'm really curious to know. Otherwise, if you're going to tonight's show, I'll see you there. I'll be the guy playing left-handed air-Hofner.
Money may still not be able to buy Paul McCartney love, but it's plain to see he's found something to do with it. Ticket: $72-$276. Seven beers: $63. Parking: $10. Is seeing Paul McCartney really priceless? Nashville has answered with a resounding "yes." Even with face-value prices as high as $410 per ticket (for the "Silver Hot Seat Package") to attend Macca's show at Bridgestone Arena this week — his first ever in Nashville — it still sold out quicker than you can say "Helter Skelter." But for many music fans, the thought of shelling out the Benjamins for a three-hour concert is simply unfathomable. If anything, paying the equivalent of a cable bill to watch a show from the far-flung, nacho-stained enclaves high atop Bridgestone's bleachers is laughably unfeasible. Even for die-hard fans, if you aren't in America's top tax bracket, you're priced out, plain and simple.
But for artists of Macca's magnitude, such astronomical asking prices are the norm, and with his voice sounding rich as ever, and a back-catalog that taught the world to sing, whatever he's asking is probably worth it: He's Paul Fucking McCartney.
No single sonic craftsman has enjoyed a more distinctive influence on pop melody composition. Yet despite his status as rock's biggest living star — or perhaps because of it — the mere mention of his name often induces sighs, scoffs or an afflicted roll of the eyes, even among hardcore Beatles fans. Why? Is it out of a knee-jerk hatred for bourgeois rock royalty? Is it because he had the audacity to include the frog chorus on "We All Stand Together"? Is it because he let Linda sing? Is it because "Ebony and Ivory" is really that terrible? Or is it out of a weird cosmic loyalty to the memory — or the idea — of John Lennon? Despite a career littered with bad haircuts and cringe-worthy stumbles — Give My Regards to Broad Street comes to mind — just having written "Eleanor Rigby" should alone be enough to canonize McCartney as one of mankind's musical saviors. And yet many an overbearing rock fan takes The Beatles and all their related faculties as seriously as Paul Revere took horseback riding, so to this day, they still feel the weight of Lennon and McCartney's acrimonious split like children acting out in response to the divorce of their own parents.
Likewise, woebegone Beatle-maniacs often feel compelled to choose sides. Together, Lennon and McCartney birthed a sound and vision that was earth-shattering. Apart, they were simply self-proclaimed rock gods. The jury came in early on, deeming John the relatable shamanic poet — the "cool" parent — and Paul the pop hedonist, the distant star on a pedestal, the cheeseball dad who embarrasses you in front of your friends with his dancing. While "Imagine" seemed to anoint John as the true voice of love and possibilities in the ears of many, Wings' cheerful, breezy shimmer anoints Paul as the FM lightweight. But could a lightweight really have written "Let It Be"?
Following the dissolution of The Beatles, the four mop-tops were reduced to the sum of their parts, but it was McCartney who aimed for the top of the pops. (He was always the band's strongest pop melodicist to begin with.) If half the songs on Band on the Run had been cut at Abbey Road Studios in 1968, the cynics would be singing a very different tune. In the age of ELO, Wings were pretty fuckin' good. Ram rivals any post-Beatles album of its time. (And Double Fantasy probably could've only benefited had Linda taken a few cuts off Yoko's hands.) A song like "Two of Us" might not have the lyrical weight of "Across the Universe," but have you ever heard someone say it sucks? Lennon might have "Instant Karma!" but hell, McCartney had "Temporary Secretary."
The dated production and fashion trends of the '80s shunted him and his ilk of living legends off into the creative wilderness to deal with their myriad musical midlife crises, but McCartney even managed to close out that decade with pretty good record, Flowers in the Dirt. And even if he didn't, the guy wrote "Yesterday." So what if he made America's post-9/11 nightmare all the worse with his painful pandering on the gag-inducing anthem "Freedom"? The man's earned the right to his ego. Nashville has ponied up the dough with a smile to see that proven in the flesh. So baby, when Macca comes to town don't hate him for being the rich asshole who tried to invert the Lennon/McCartney credits to McCartney/Lennon on his Beatles compositions, love him for being the rich man who penned the ones like "Blackbird." Live and let live.
Comments (22)
Showing 1-22 of 22
I'm not here to hate on Sir Paul, but I refuse to spend that kind of money to see a rock show, even though I'm sure it will be great. Same reason I'm not going to Tom Petty. Question, Gold: would you pay that kind of money?
like
dislike
I am not paying for my ticket tonight. My wonderful son, who was reared on McCartney, Beatles, etc. is taking me for my big 6-0 birthday! Last time I saw Macca was Aug.'66, yes, that's 1966 at Shea Stadium (also '65 same venue) and it was a wonderful happy time and lasting memory. I can't wait to see him again, and yes, I am 14 one more time smiling and very excited! And you can't take that away from me! Janie
Maybe this will cue Pete Wilson to rise once more to the defense of "Silly Love Songs." (Even if I weren't already convinced, he'd sway me.)
Remember Jimmie "J.J." Walker's routine about those crazy rock lyrics and "Let 'Em In" in particular? It was a lot funnier when he was still doing it in the 1990s.
A few notes on "astronomical" costs for McCartney tickets. In 2002 or 3, a Chicago "critic" attempted to insult McCartney by saying the local firemen couldn't afford a ticket to his concerts. Curious, I called and checked the salary level of a local firefighter. I discovered that he was making $15K a year more than I was, and I managed to get to five concerts in that tour. I had to fly to all of them, and sleep in a hotel. I sat in seats at every price, from $85. to $250., and can testify that there wasn't a bad seat in the house. This year I'm retired, and my income has shrunk dramatically. I still managed to get to the Miami concert, use a $39. ticket, and had, as usual, the time of my life. Y'all either want to see a Beatle who's a master showman with a solid gold back catalogue, or you don't. But please don't blame the ticket prices for your lack of enterprise. It will never be possible to see the Beatles for $5.00 again, but you have available a concert that's over 5 times as long as the average Beatles concert, doesn't let up in intensity for the entire 2.75 hours, and even at $250.00, it's a bargain. For $39.00, it's a steal.
@ryan. I've $100 to see Springsteen and $100 to see Leonard Cohen. When I can afford and it's a show I really wanna see, I cave pretty easily. Basically, I ask myself how valuable I think the memory of the show will be. If I wasn't getting hooked up for this one, I probably would've caved and bought an $80 noose-bleed. This shit's gonna be epic!
Mr. Gold: You mean you don't have to pay for your ticket? Even better! Yes, it's gonna be epic. I come away from a McCartney concert, every time, feeling that I have just seen a thing done as well as it CAN be done, and the thing he's doing is the Rock Show! And I reflect that it doesn't take very long for an Olympic athlete to turn in a Gold Medal performance. Sarah Hughes skated for 5 minutes or less and raised the bar for figure skating. McCartney, at 68, is on stage for almost 3 hours, singing up to Beatles' standards.
And then there's the fan who came out of a McCartney concert in Boston muttering: "He's not charging enough." Enjoy!
I don't even remember what was supposed to be wrong with "Silly Love Songs" any more. It's a very good song, in any case!
Trivia question: When did Paul McCartney write Silly Love Songs?
Answer: 1964 to 2010.
I shelled out $103 for a nosebleed with taxes and fees. I debated for a few days before I decided to take the plunge. My logic: this is possibly my only chance to ever see a Beatle perform live, seeing as there are only two left and they're not young. And I would much rather see Paul than Ringo.
You'd think that people would have had enough of "Silly Love Songs." I look around me and I see it isn't so. Oh no.
Actually I love Let 'Em In. I read a great description of that song on an article about McCartney in a British magazine. It described Let 'Em In like this: "There's a party at Paul McCartney's house. Who's invited? His family, Martin Luther and the Everly Brothers. And they'd better get a shift on — the lulled, loping feel of 'Let 'Em In' suggests that Paul started without them, at lunchtime. One of the vaguest hits of the decade, not so much a song as a faint after-image, 'Let 'Em In' is tenebrous despite itself. An extraordinarily eerie record." (I had to look up "tenebrous": it means dark, obscure). Great freaking song.
McCartney has such an amazing range of stuff he's done, from the banal to the sublime. The haters focus on the banal and ignore the sublime while his fans do the reverse.
My favorite McCartney throwaway has to be "Ballroom Dancing," which has it all: unwarranted historical reference, spelling, goofy fake voice, disparate melodic fragments yoked together, etc. It's like he heard the world's subconscious clamoring for a double-speed "Uncle Albert / Admiral Halsey."
I completely understand why people pay the big bucks to see their favorite artists. I'm not arguing with that. I just won't do it anymore, that's all. Y'all have fun tonight!
I love the people who claim to not be fans of Paul's anymore because of his recent political comments. Uh, hello? Where have you been the last 45 years? Do you not realize that the Beatles were at the vanguard of the hippie movement in the '60s? Paul's views, while not as overtly public as John's, have not exactly been a secret all these decades.
I'm out of work, haven't gotten unemployment since June, but scraped together the money for my daughter and I to see Sir Paul. It was beyond tremendous! I may have to eat peanut butter sandwiches for the next 2 months, but that's a small sacrifice for the experience we had tonight.
Ok for you people who said you're not willing to pay to see him then you're crazy!!!! He was worth eery penny tonight in Nashville!!!! The concert was amazing!!!! I feel bad for anyone who missed this concert tonight
Why do some people dislike Paul? The article points it out very simply - too many bad, cheesy, songs in his solo career have dented his legacy. Whether it's "Wonderful Christmastime", "The Girl is Mine", "No More Lonely Nights", "Say, Say, Say", etc. - Paul has seemed to go out of his way to send the message that he is the happy, poppy former Beatle, content with putting out pleasantly forgettable material. He's a nice person, with a fabulous life, limitless talent, and you know he'll put on a great show - but to me, the question remains: why so many cheesy, crappy songs? And to me, it wasn't just in the 80's - I'm no fan of Wings, either - unless they're hot wings. I like those. It's just puzzling that such a mega talent could keep turning out such mediocrity. It seems like a waste of talent, and in the 30 years since the Beatles ended, I think he could have, and should have done a lot better. I'm pretty sure the author of this blog has said the same of Rod Stewart, stating that he was blessed with a rock voice from the gods - but chose to follow trend after trend, and put out schmaltzy crap time and time again. Elton John is guilty of this, too - something he admits, attributing it to his drug use. Music is a subjective thing, and there's no accounting for what it is that grabs ya - but way, way too much of Paul's stuff fails to grab me, and leaves me feeling short changed, considering his talent level.
How many rock musicians have maintained a consistent flow of good records for 45 years? None. A few great records is as much as anyone should expect. Something wears thin after a while--inspiration, drive, energy, whatever. What Paul did with the Beatles alone was WAY more than anyone should expect. Anything else that's good is gravy. I haven't followed Paul for probably two decades, and feel no need to, but I enjoyed "Maybe I'm Amazed," "Band on the Run," "1985," "Silly Love Songs," "Jet" and even (dare I say it?) "Mull of Kintyre" quite a bit.
Vote here for best Band of the Week
Slideshows
Top Commenters
