sometime i read christgau and am amazed...

(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.

I'm just saying that, for me, that record feels aesthetically drab. The fact that it was a conscious choice on Lennon's part doesn't make that much of a difference for me as to whether that factor affects how much I like it.

But, I mean, what isn't deliberate about records? "Mumbo" was deliberate. McCartney's avoidance of rockist approved subject matter was deliberate.

Oh no, wait, I forgot. It was actually because he didn't have the intellectual capacity...

It's okay, Tim: I like Press to Play as much as you do.

Where is Xgau putting psychology and politics up against "art"?

If this isn't what was meant by claiming that McCartney "doesn't have big thoughts" and is not of the intellectual caliber of John Lennon or Lou Reed, then I would entertain other ideas as to the meaning of those statements.

xpost x 10
Yeah, but Tim, you gotta admit that Wild Life in particular is really flabby, even just sonically/musically. And you're also making an apples/oranges thing of this, too. Can you really say that the sound of those PM records works to make the meaning in the same way that the sound of POB does?

xp But where did Xgau say McCartney was art and Lennon/Reed weren't? He didn't say, that, Tim; you did.

Gentlemen! Gentlemen!! Who's gonna adopt The Macallan?

(No, I, alas, cannot. I have a redecoration, sort of, in, like, progress) /Ringo

B-b-b-but you're talking about "meaning!" Yes, for me, the sparseness of McCartney and Wild Life has as much to do with the "meaning" of those records as it does with Plastic Ono Band.

But where did Xgau say McCartney was art and Lennon/Reed weren't? He didn't say, that, Tim; you did.

No, you've missed the point and are actually putting words in my mouth there.

*rubs eyes*

Tim, again, the dread psychology and politics are inherent to art in many cases -- Chuck Berry, even, if you wanna look for them.

That's right - but the psychology of Paul McCartney records was less rigorous and intellectual than the psychology of John Lennon and Lou Reed records.

Xpost

And yeah, I'm talking about meaning. A pretty big thing for Christgau, and I guess me too. Meaning is part of the pleasure RC takes from music. I don't think that's an incredibly overintellectualized stance, either.

"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!!!"

Yes, but it's a privileging of particular subject matter as meaning. And those are rockist approved subjects - psychology, politics, whatever else is deemed meaningful with Lennon, Reed, etc. Color - as in Ram and Venus and Mars are pretty colorful records - is not as significantly "meaningful." Don't tell that to a color therapist!

Yes, Martin, in that statment I meant art devoid of rockist-approved "meaning."

That's right - but the psychology of Paul McCartney records was less rigorous and intellectual than the psychology of John Lennon and Lou Reed records.

Well, yeah. This is a taste thing, but it's not my fault if he can't always make the "empty" thing work for him. As Alfred pointed out (think it was Alfred), a lot of this music is really slipshod: Even taking it on its own terms as sound, it lacks a lot. I was really excited to finally hear Wild Life, 'cause I thought it was all gonna be focused/loose like "Mumbo" (that's the first cut, right?). But no. Most of it's just loose and falling-apart in a really uncompelling way.

I mean, anyone who knows as much about Little Richard as Paul McCartney does should know how to apply those lessons of formalism to whatever he tries. Make goopy, aimless six-minute cuts, sure, but make 'em exciting. Then the goopiness and aimlessness -- voila! -- disappear.

Oh god, there are a ton of McCartney fans who would disagree with the idea that a lot of his music is really slipshod. I mean, other than the fact that he's had his down periods compositionally. But like even Lester Bangs recognized that Band on the Run was "masterful in its own way."

Tim I agree that McCartney is Lennon's superior in terms of the albums's overall aesthetic unity - I dunno if I'd say conceptualization, because I'm not sure there's the kind of conscious, schematic planning that seems to imply for me. But yes, in terms of the way his music seems to form this natural, supple, organic whole, with a staggering number of artistic decisions all cohering together, McCartney is astonishing in a way Lennon isn't.

Ironically the massive musical sophistication of McCartney contributes to a suspicion that he can't of planned it all, it must just be "natural genius". (see "I dunno if I'd say conceptualization")

But his polish (slickness if you want to be pejorative) wouldn't create that feeling if there wasn't a lack of, er, obvious intellectualism in his lyrics. And whether or not you think it should be prized in music, I think "intellectualism" is a good word for what Lennon offers that McCartney doesn't. Remember "more intellectual" doesn't mean "smarter", it just means "appealing to or using the intellect". McCartney's brilliance is designed to appeal to the emotions, and while it's immensely rewarding to analyze his music intellectually, it takes a conscious will (for me) to do so, whereas Lennon will engage the intellect even if I'm listening passively.

McCartney, Red Rose Speedway, Back to the Egg – all have their share of slipshodedness.

See, I disagree there because I think engaging someone aesthetically is engaging their intellect and I REALLY question the degree to which Lennon or Reed should be praised in retrospect for engaging the intellect about topical subjects in their lyrics.

I agree, Alfred (though whether you like it or not, and sometimes I don't think the stuff is that great, it was generally slipshodness-as-concept).

Lukas OTM.

Remember "more intellectual" doesn't mean "smarter."

Tell that to The Dean, who claims McCartney "just doesn't have it."

Tim, with Lennon or Reed or whoever, it's more than just bringing in "topical subjects" as a card trick or something, as you seem to be implying.

X-gau-POST I

...falling-apart in a really uncompelling way

Timi (not) Yuro -- please to give a good 'xample of "falling apart in a *compelling* way", then.
(In case it wasn't Little Richard already)

X-gau-POST II

McCartney, Red Rose Speedway, Back to the Egg – all have their share of slipshodedness

Good Lord, but so have most of Lennon's rekkids.
However rigorous in their "intellectual concep", in execution they're oftentimes rather slipshod, uh?

i always saw both L & M as weirdly stunted in some way. still rambling on and on about 50s rock all thru the 70's. get a new trick, grandpa. and no don't make it opera or techno. they could both be kinda dim. or maybe that's just rich people for you. same with lou reed and neil young though. they are all kinda demented.

x-posts to Timi Yuro: No, I don't know what you mean by "card tricks" - I mean, I know the subject matter of the lyrics was really significant to what they were supposed to be. But, for me, I don't see how the alleged DEPTH in the grappling with subjects (grappling = work; art = play) in those artists is so much more intellectually advanced than what McCartney was doing.

still rambling on and on about 50s rock all thru the 70's.

?

See, I disagree there because I think engaging someone aesthetically is engaging their intellect

I guess I'm drawing a left-brain/right-brain distinction. There's amazing music that just doesn't register in the left hemisphere for me. And there's crap music that does. It's not just a lyrics thing, either, instrumental music can fall on either side of the divide as well.

I REALLY question the degree to which Lennon or Reed should be praised in retrospect for engaging the intellect about topical subjects in their lyrics.

Well yeah like I said, whether or not you think it should be prized in music, it's there.

I should add that when Lennon engages the intellect, often the intellect's reaction is "what a poorly thought through mess of ideas and vague impulses."

Lou Reed is Xgau's old rocker go-to guy.

still rambling on and on about 50s rock all thru the 70's.

?

Scott's right about Lennon: despite the lip service he gave to punk in 1980, he spent most of the latter half of the decade playing proto-rock in his Wurlitzer.

Macca, on the other hand, never stopped listening to the radio, and this was reflected (sometimes badly) in the one-off albums and singles he released at the time.