21 Dec 10
3 edits
Originally posted by utherpendragonyes, in retrospect you may have a point, with regard to Yesterday, there was an amazing band at one time called spirit who covered yesterday ( i know who hasnt), but they were lead by a guy called Randy California, best cover of Yesterday i have heard, tried to get it on the net, for it was on an LP and have so far failed 🙂McCartney was content to be surface, the most profound song he wrote was Hey Jude-robbie carrobie
Most profound? I disagree. "Let it" be comes to mind. "Long and winding road" is another.
Going back to their earlier days, "Yesterday" for Paul would be his most profound work in my opinion.
21 Dec 10
Originally posted by scacchipazzoJohn Lennon was amongst the artists that helped me find something deeper in life.
But did he find it or help anyone find it? Therein lies the fallacy of exhalting those like Lennon. McCartney was not pretentious in that way. Lennon fancied himself a philosopher/poet. Simply because he searched does not elevate him, his music, his lyrics. His memorial garden is "strawberry Fields" for good reason. There is no one song that comes to mi ...[text shortened]... Perhaps if he had stuck to "yeah,yeah, yeah" he may have eventually stumbled onto something.
Imagine will always be a powerful song.
Perhaps time will be the true test of who has the greatest legacy?
21 Dec 10
Originally posted by karoly aczelNo disputes the enromous popularity, the anthem songs loved by many and the pop icon Lennon became, but musically speaking he was a lesser song writer than McCartney. Yet together they produced great pop classics! Modern music is better for having had these two for they influenced many.
John Lennon was amongst the artists that helped me find something deeper in life.
Imagine will always be a powerful song.
Perhaps time will be the true test of who has the greatest legacy?
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
21 Dec 10
Originally posted by rwingettDirect, visceral, painful to behold... such terms are exactly why I do not think Lennon is worth the glory he's given. Why would I want teenage angst from a thirty-something?
Yes, clearly. It's no contest. McCartney's silly love songs pale in the shadow of Lennon's work, which embodies an integrity and an honesty so direct and visceral that it is almost painful to behold. McCartney is an expert craftsman, but Lennon is the true artist.
Richard
21 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by scacchipazzoGood to know we agree on this. Well, for all intents and purposes it is your attitude towards his entire body of work, you basically said "lets not bother about him since my sweet lord was plagiarized". If this isn't dismissing a whole body of work on the account of one song I don't know what is.
No argument there. The man is a quasi-poet at best. Mistrust is not dismissing an entire body of work altogether. Happily no other cases surfaced. McCartney preferred smarm to plagiarism. Noting wrong with that. He was never as high as his buddy Lennon. McCartney was closer to Julian than his father was. I refuse to accept the social activism of one who has no personal peace yet tries to dictate it to others. What's wrong with that?
McCartney preferred smarm to plagiarism. Nothing wrong with that
Im not saying it is right or wrong, but it doesn't do much to aggrandize his musical talents, on the contrary.
He was never as high as his buddy Lennon
Wasn't McCartney involved in drug busts even up until the 1980s?
and anyway, why does it matter?
McCartney was closer to Julian than his father was. I refuse to accept the social activism of one who has no personal peace yet tries to dictate it to others. What's wrong with that?
This may well have been the case, but as far as Lennon's merits as a songwriter and musician are concerned this is utterly irrelevant. Like I said previously, the question is not over whether one agrees or disagrees with Lennon's preaching, but over whether these are relatively meaningful in comparison to McCartney's material. I agree with rwingett's verdict, that Lennon was indeed the true artist.
21 Dec 10
Originally posted by generalissimoPlagiarist in chief was Harrison, not Lennon. Lennon was for lyrics, not music. I never dismissed their entire body of work, simply mistrust ownership of music/lyrics. McCartney never had any such issues. I never said let's not bother, simply that I tend to not enjoy fraudulent work.
Good to know we agree on this. Well, for all intents and purposes it is your attitude towards his entire body of work, you basically said "lets not bother about him since my sweet lord was plagiarized". If this isn't dismissing a whole body of work on the account of one song I don't know what is.
[b]McCartney preferred smarm to plagiarism. Nothing w ...[text shortened]... 's material. I agree with rwingett's verdict, that Lennon was indeed the true artist.
I do not appreciate drug addicts. McCartney's problem never appaears to ahve gone as deep and none of his songs aggrandize drug absue like some of Lennon's do.
As for social activism, you find it acceptable to have some SOB lecture you on peace when he's a self admitted wife beater? I guess peace for some and not for others! " world will live as one", except he neglected his first born and left him nothing in his will? Dishonorable people dictating to others is a disgrace. Forgive me for preferring sincere smarm to fraudulent, petulant platitudes! What art is there in falsity and insincerity?
23 Dec 10
Originally posted by scacchipazzoLennon was for lyrics, not music.
Plagiarist in chief was Harrison, not Lennon. Lennon was for lyrics, not music. I never dismissed their entire body of work, simply mistrust ownership of music/lyrics. McCartney never had any such issues. I never said let's not bother, simply that I tend to not enjoy fraudulent work.
I do not appreciate drug addicts. McCartney's problem never appaear ...[text shortened]... re smarm to fraudulent, petulant platitudes! What art is there in falsity and insincerity?
from wiki:
"In 1973, "Come Together" was the subject of a lawsuit brought against Lennon by Big Seven Music Corp. (owned by Morris Levy) who was the publisher of Chuck Berry's "You Can't Catch Me". This was because it sounded similar musically to Berry's original and shared some lyrics (Lennon sang "Here come ol' flattop, he come groovin' up slowly" and Berry's had sung "Here come a flattop, he was movin' up with me"😉. Before recording, Lennon and McCartney deliberately slowed the song down and added a heavy bass riff in order to make the song more original.[11] "
I don't see how this is different from the Harrison case.
and here's more from these shameless plagiarists: http://www.warr.org/beatles.html
Not a second time: Plagiarism and the Beatles
In the interest of fairness to Led Zeppelin, I want to point out that Zep wasn't the only band to, um, borrow chords, melodies and lyrics from other artists. Here are the Beatles' brushes with suspicious similarity:
"Come Together" - the first two lines are adapted from Chuck Berry's "You Can't Catch Me."
"Fixing A Hole" - Mal Evans cowrote the song with Paul, but took a one-time payment rather than a songwriting credit. Not plagiarism, because Evans was a willing party to the arrangement, but it sure is weird.
"Free As A Bird" - when the Threetles revived this 1977 Lennon demo in 1995, they added a middle section. Unfortunately, they added the middle section from the 1964 Shangri-Las hit "Remember (Walkin' In The Sand)."
"Golden Slumbers" - lyrics adapted from a 17th Century poem by Thomas Dekker.
"I Feel Fine" - main guitar line borrowed from Bobby Parker's "Watch Your Step."
"Run For Your Life" - first line comes from "Baby Let's Play House" as recorded by Elvis Presley.
"Something" - first line is the title of a song by then-Apple recording artist James Taylor
"The Inner Light" - lyrics were lifted, uncredited, from the Tao Te Ching.
23 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by generalissimo"Shameless plagiarists"? What a joke. Why didn't you quote the introduction?
[b]Lennon was for lyrics, not music.
from wiki:
"In 1973, "Come Together" was the subject of a lawsuit brought against Lennon by Big Seven Music Corp. (owned by Morris Levy) who was the publisher of Chuck Berry's "You Can't Catch Me". This was because it sounded similar musically to Berry's original and shared some lyrics (Lennon sang "Here come ere lifted, uncredited, from the Tao Te Ching.[/b]
"Forget it, I won't even try to make some new and profound generalizations about the most famous, influential, talented, and over-analyzed musical performers of the last half-century. Suffice it to say that you won't be able to understand the first thing about 60s rock - or Western pop music in general, really - until you sit down and memorize the half-dozen most important Beatles records. Almost every new LP shattered the previous boundaries of rock 'n' roll, and Lennon and McCartney's songwriting surpassed that of almost all their contemporaries.
There are three more points I just can't restrain myself from making: first, avoid all greatest hits packages, such as 1, as virtually every Beatles record is a greatest hits package unto itself. Second, the ratings here are conservative, spread out to give some guidance to the novice fan. If we were to rate these records relative to everything else being done in the 60s, virtually every disc would get four or five stars. Finally, the Beatles' rhythm section is, if anything, under-rated - brilliant singing, songwriting, and production weren't the only things the Beatles had going for them."
http://www.warr.org/beatles.html
23 Dec 10
Originally posted by PBE6It was a tongue-in-cheek remark, made in response to scachipazzo's implication that Harrison was the "plagiarist in chief".
"Shameless plagiarists"? What a joke. Why didn't you quote the introduction?
"Forget it, I won't even try to make some new and profound generalizations about the most famous, influential, talented, and over-analyzed musical performers of the last half-century. Suffice it to say that you won't be able to understand the first thing about 60s rock - or Wester ...[text shortened]... he only things the Beatles had going for them."
http://www.warr.org/beatles.html
23 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by generalissimoYou confuse "influence" with plagiarism, adaptation with fraudulence. The lawsuit against Lennon-McCartney does not appear to have gotten very far. The Harrison one did. Come Together is not a 1973 song at all. Beatles were no longer together by then. Come together is from 1969's Abbey Road album. At any rate, I never called Harrison "plagiarist in chief". I merely state I mistrust the dude after such provable plagiarism. Lennon-McCartney's alleged plagiarism resulted in the suit being settled out of court. Eventually the plaintiff got an additional $6K? Hardly a prosperous lawsuit.
[b]Lennon was for lyrics, not music.
from wiki:
"In 1973, "Come Together" was the subject of a lawsuit brought against Lennon by Big Seven Music Corp. (owned by Morris Levy) who was the publisher of Chuck Berry's "You Can't Catch Me". This was because it sounded similar musically to Berry's original and shared some lyrics (Lennon sang "Here come ere lifted, uncredited, from the Tao Te Ching.[/b]
Throughout music history there have been examples of influence, borrowing, quoting others, self borrowing, repeating lines, quoting poetry. So what? Harrison lifted and entire song line for line. Different lyrics, same song. Even Beethoven quoted Mozart, yet there is no doubting who the better composer was.
24 Dec 10
Originally posted by scacchipazzoYou confuse "influence" with plagiarism, adaptation with fraudulence
You confuse "influence" with plagiarism, adaptation with fraudulence. The lawsuit against Lennon-McCartney does not appear to have gotten very far. The Harrison one did. Come Together is not a 1973 song at all. Beatles were no longer together by then. Come together is from 1969's Abbey Road album. At any rate, I never called Harrison "plagiarist in chie ...[text shortened]... song. Even Beethoven quoted Mozart, yet there is no doubting who the better composer was.
I see we're dealing with euphemisms here...
Im aware of the outcome of the my sweet lord lawsuit and how it contrasted with that of Come Together, but the facts of the case were essentially comparable.
At any rate, I never called Harrison "plagiarist in chief".
backpedaling already?
Originally posted by scacchipazzo
"plagiarist in chief was Harrison, not Lennon..."
and this was a few posts ago!
Lennon-McCartney's alleged plagiarism resulted in the suit being settled out of court. Eventually the plaintiff got an additional $6K? Hardly a prosperous lawsuit.
but a lawsuit nevertheless.
and please, lets not forget all the other examples of plagiarism, its very unfair to single out Harrison in light of the stolen riff of I feel fine and similar cases.
So what? Harrison lifted and entire song line for line. Different lyrics, same song.
this isn't what is being argued here, what is being argued is whether it is fair to extrapolate that an artist's whole body of work needs to be treated with suspicion because of one single song, by your logic the whole of Bob Dylan's work must also be "mistrusted" since he stole the melody of "with God on our side".
24 Dec 10
Originally posted by generalissimoOK so I forgot about plagiarist in chief. You just won't admit that slightly simliar lyrics to an actually identical melody is a real different thing in court. That makes Harrison worse than Lennon. Again, Lennon's was influence rather than outright fraud like Harrison's. Nuff said!
[b]You confuse "influence" with plagiarism, adaptation with fraudulence
I see we're dealing with euphemisms here...
Im aware of the outcome of the my sweet lord lawsuit and how it contrasted with that of Come Together, but the facts of the case were essentially comparable.
At any rate, I never called Harrison "plagiarist in chief".
...[text shortened]... rk must also be "mistrusted" since he stole the melody of "with God on our side".[/b]