sometime i read christgau and am amazed...

"The thing about McCartney...he doesn't have great ideas. He's just sort of...a level of intellectual sophistication...he doesn't have it. He doesn't have the instincts that a Lennon or a Lou Reed or a Bob Dylan or even a Neil Young has for just thinking. And that makes his work really soft around the edges."

"the instincts for thinking." so we're talking about instincts or thinking here? I'd be hard pressed to say who's more theoretical, or who benefits more from either thinking or instinct, or this mysterious instinct for thinking--Reed or McCartney. at this point, isn't it rather insane to worry about Paul McCartney either way? His contributions are huge, no doubt, but I'd just as soon worry about Brian Wilson, who was always better than almost all the Beatles put together, and he had no instinct for thinking, thus, he achieved the real ur-banality/pop dream "Paulie" or "Macca" never quite got--compare "Johnny Carson" to any of McCartney's concurrent '70s shit. Pondering Johnny Carson goes beyond "instinct for thinking." That's pop music, in my book. But to be fair, The Dean wuz the one whose basically onthemoney review of Beach Boys Love You turned me on to the record, so whatever.

...Lou Redd, of all ..."people"?

(Uhh, Reed! ...(wotever))

Those are just such tired cliches about what constitutes Real Thinking and Intellectual Sophistication. And couched in this freaking THE DEAN oppressiveness whereby McCartney doesn't get put in the advanced class with John Lennon and Lou Reed and Neil Young!

Brian Wilson, who was always better than almost all the Beatles put together

waht?

He just doesn't have it.

If by "he" is meant Lu Rddd, I agree. 'holeheartedlyyyy.

no i was quoting xgau about mccartney

Tim, do you think McCartney's music does display "a level of intellectual sophistication"?

Definitely as much as John Lennon's, Lou Reed's or Neil Young's. Maybe not as much as Bob Dylan at his best.

X(gau)post

Xgau obv. isn't teh best source to out 'bout Maccasir.
;)

Can you give examples?

Yeah, there's about a million of them. But sixties vanguard intellectualism will never agree that "Penny Lane" was just as intellectually sophisticated as "Strawberry Fields Forever."

Christgau just means "Paul's lyrics suck."

That's not quite true, Tim; he says generally nice things about Paul in that long Lennon essay he wrote in the early eighties, and singles out "For No One" and "Penny Lane" for special praise.

Can you *give* examples?

(X-gau-post)

"The thing about Lou Reed ...he doesn't have great ideas. He's just sort of...a level of intellectual ambition... he doesn't have it. He doesn't have the instincts that a Lennon or a McCartney or a Bob Dylan or even a Neil Young has for just thinking. And that makes his work really soft around the edges."

Seems fairer, 'tleast to me.

No Alfred, he also means that John Lennon's lyrics and Lou Reed's lyrics and Neil Young's lyrics were more Intellectually Advanced.

x-post - I wouldn't imagine he would say it was as Intellectually Sophisticated as the sacred text that is "Strawberry Fields Forever," however.

(meaning "Penny Lane" sorry xposts)

Can someone post the link to the podcast?

http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2007/06/05/paul-mccartney-memory-almost-full-the-long-blondes-someone-to-drive-you-home-robert-christgau-rolling-stone/

Martin, asking for examples of how Paul McCartney is as intellectually sophisticated as John Lennon or Lou Reed is fruitless because I think just about ALL OF HIS MUSIC can be looked at this way. How about, if someone wants to argue the opposite, they give me an example of a Lennon or Reed song that demonstrates superior intellectual sophistication?

Seriously, though, the presumption about "he just doesn't have the capacity" is what's most galling.

Well, Lennon worked quite self-consciously with a conception of himself as a persona and a celebrity throughout his solo career. *Plastic Ono Band* and *Imagine* and *Double Fantasy* are all organized around ideas about self and presentation. Maybe you don't think they're *good* ideas, but it's certainly a different--a more intellectual--way of working than McCartney seems to have, and I'd agree with Christgau that this gives Lennon's music a resonance that McCartney doesn't have access to.

...gives Lennon's music a resonance that McCartney doesn't have access to

Oi, do elabo-labo-labo-labo-rate please! with examples,yeh!

I love that line of Xgau's about John Updike being "an extremely skilled" fiction writer whose values he finds "repellent."

Lennon writes from within a role as "John Lennon," and for me this gives his career a shape and a narrative, and sets up a relationship between his songs, creates a dialogue between them. And *Double Fantasy* as a whole is a brilliant self-conscious recasting of a marriage into an artificially romantic pop ideal.

McCartney albums are always conceptual. The fact that Lennon organized his "around ideas about self and presentation"* is the reason you're giving for why you see those albums, conceptually, as more "intellectual." I would argue that McCartney albums are generally more artistically conceptual than Lennon albums and that art can be looked at as an intellectual activity.

Another interesting thing in that video is how his compositional ability is referred to as a "gift" - a "gift" that he merely falls back upon, no less. The lyric writing process is seemingly where the real "thinking" comes and (instincts or not lol) that's where the real WORK comes in.

It provides an interesting perspective on rockism, I think. Rockism not only privileges "meaning" over, you know, "'Monkberry Moon Delight' is not meaningful enough" but creates a hierarchy where particular areas of thought - and when we're talking about Lennon, Reed, Young, etc., we're seemingly talking about DEALING WITH PAIN and POLITICS - are elevated to a position above...what? Above art!!!

Could you say more about McCartney's "artistically conceptual" albums? I'm not opposed to seeing that as an intellectual activity, just not sure what you mean.

I don't think that those artists' "particular areas of thought" should be distinguished from their art. Are you making an argument in favor of formalism?

(X-gau-POST)

What you say, Martin, you say rather beautifully...
And I used to be myself, for nearly a coupla decades, I guess, one of teh - possibly - millions who did take it as a given that "Lennon=smart+pithy+intellectual+ohgodwotnot!", whereas "Macca"=pop/pap+unserious+insignificant+dumbeddown, wotever"...
I don't quite believe all that any more. It's not like I don't love Lennon at all... Just yesterday I listened to this 2CD compilation his, (W.C.Hero, and it sounds - *especially* after the 2CD-ful of mostly very lousy Lennon covers that Amn.International have put out recently - pretty solid after all these years. Yet - I've listened to also a lot of Macca's solo rekkids over the past 2-3 years, and ...Very little solo Lennon at the same time (yeah, I'kno, I'mma slippin more and more into some merely subjecto-impressionisto-memoir-simplistico babble-bubble here...)
Huh, I'd venture that Lennon appears lots more "less-dimensional" musically, overall. (Yeah, yeah - his future buds and flowerings were snuffed too early and cruelly, and everything. Yet, "just" "sound-wise", Maccasir seems much more varied now. A more versatile musical mind, I'd say.

McCartney has always seemed to me to be very interested in the aesthetics of the album as a thing - it's a more abstract type of conceptualism than organizing an album around a particular theme.

I don't think that those artists' "particular areas of thought" should be distinguished from their art. Are you making an argument in favor of formalism?

What I'm saying is that the xgau argument results from this idea of a hierarchy of human activity where particular activities - grappling with pain, thinking about politics, whatever else is considered "intellectual" in Lennon, Reed, etc. - are considered to be Really Advanced whereas "Monkberry Moon Delight" is NOT.

(Me likes wot Tim's saying so far. Honest. I'mma just a-waiting... waiting when Tim'll get to waxing alaytical as to how Wild Life is mo' & better intellectual than, say, The Wedding Album :)

t**t, I have no problem with calling McCartney more varied in terms of sound and "music," though production style is a big conceptual part of Lennon's big three solo records.

But I think what Xgau's getting at, bulling thru the china shop as he may, is that for lots of us non-haters of Paul there's just *something* missing that keeps the music from gelling, and though calling that lack "intellectualism" is loading the deck, I think it points in a useful direction.

And Tim, please keep elaborating on Mc's conceptualism, I'm curious.

I'm not saying every McCartney album is great and, in fact, I'd argue that there ARE things missing from almost of them. But when you hear an album that IS pretty great - like Ram, for example - there's no reason to argue that the missing component had something to do with what xgau means when he uses the term "intellectual."

almost all of them

Martin, you don't see McCartney or Wild Life or Band on the Run or Venus and Mars or Back to the Egg or McCartney II or...more recently Flaming Pie and Run Devil Run and Chaos and Creation in the Backyard as very aesthetically conceptual records?

I mean, I could just as easily say that something feels missing on Plastic Ono Band. But the fact that the thing that's missing is more COLOR is excusable in the rockist hierarchy. Because color is not as Important as psychology and politics.

here's no reason to argue that the missing component had something to do with what xgau means when he uses the term "intellectual."

Unless the missing component is...intellectual rigor.

"rigor"?

And thinking about color is for children like "Paulie" while psychology and politics are for adults.

x-post - right, Alfred. McCartney's artistic endeavors cannot be labelled "rigorous" because "rigor" means WORK and of course art is not as much an intellectual activity as psychology and politics.

I guess I'm not sure what you mean by "aesthetically conceptual." I understand, I guess, wrt *Run Devil Run.* To be honest, I don't know all of these records all that well.

And since it was a pretty conscious decision to exclude color from POB that's kind of a bad choice.

(X-gau-POST)

i know i'mma gonna sound morbid and shit but -- so macca just cannot win because lennon-san already has rigor and mortis?!

rigor = WORK while we know that "paulie" just falls back on his "gift."

Sonically, McCartney and Wild Life, right out of the box with his solo career, are just as conceptual as Plastic Ono Band.

since it was a pretty conscious decision to exclude color from POB that's kind of a bad choice.

It's not a bad choice if it ultimately has something to do with how much I like or don't like the record! We were talking about "missing components." And I'm just saying that there's no reason for anyone who has ever like some album that wasn't "meaningful" or "intellectual" in the rockist sense to say that the thing McCartney lacked on any given album was INTELLECTUAL RIGOR!

Come on, there's a big difference between "missing" and "deliberately excluded." It's one thing to say a record lacks color. It's another to say a record has avoided color as a conceptual sonic choice.

art is not as much an intellectual activity as psychology and politics.

I have no real opinion on John vs Paul; haven't cared much about anything either Beatle has done for decades (well, the one who has done something, anyway), and probably like their solo careers before that about equally, but this dichotomy is driving me crazy. Where is Xgau putting psychology and politics up against "art"? If anything (assuming politics and psychology are even his point with Lennon and Reed, who I suspect he would argue also have richer --maybe even more colorful -- music than McCartney), isn't he saying psych and poltics are (or can be) part of art?

Sonically, McCartney and Wild Life, right out of the box with his solo career, are just as conceptual as Plastic Ono Band.

I would agree with this. But you're placing too much emphasis on the wrong bit of Xgau's criticism. As you well know, I enjoy many Macca songs, even a few albums. Every artist has his Achilles' heel. McCartney's isn't so much soft-headedness as a devotion to the spontaneous, which at its worst manifests itself as slipshod, unrounded, and unfinished songs and albums.

Plus, he liked the new album a lot! He thought the magazine had underrated it and went out of his way to praise two "absolutely great" songs.

i don't understand a single post in this entire thread.