sometime i read christgau and am amazed...

xps galore

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.

Me too, actually. Can't recall any current events John or Lou have ever especially shed light on, say. To me it feels like they engage emotions sometimes, just like McCartney does sometimes, and their music engages sonically sometimes, just like McCartney's does sometimes. I'm not convinced their appeal is all that different from his, in the long run, and yeah, they've made plenty of imperfect records too. But then, I'm not Xgau.

grappling = work; art = play

There you go again.

But they care about being perceived as intellectuals and that has an impact on their music (not always a good one.) McCartney has different goals.

Have you read Barry Miles' book? I think that actually suggests otherwise. I think McCartney sees art as an intellectual activity - but yeah, it's maybe a semantic issue at this point.

Chuck, what I'm trying to suggest there is that I think there's a sort of work ethic involved here. Lennon and Reed were "grappling," which does imply work as opposed to play. I'm not trying to put words in Christgau's mouth, but I do think that's a factor here. McCartney didn't want to take on the "rigor," as Alfred claimed.

(or, again, the claim that he actually didn't have the intellectual aptitude to do so in the first place!)

should i go see beatlemania now? they are coming to the island.

lou reed reminds me of "steve martin - art collector" sometimes. he's better off rambling on and on about 50's rock. why do all these fancy rock stars have to prove they are smart? they are obviously kinda smart. frustrated poets.

paul is plenty smart. i don't think many people think that paul is dumb or something. that's silly.

but just cuz someone liked stockhausen and made techno records and operas doesn't mean that they are a deep thinker or anything.

Tim, the word you keep repeatedly putting in Xgau's mouth is "art," which - - again -- he never said Reed and Lennon are not. (I totally understand the grappling part, and may even agree with you on it.)

why are you claiming that they're trying to prove that they're smart?

actually, in mccartney's case, given all the criticisms of him through the years, it seems like a valid gripe.

x-post: don't know who you're referring to when you say it's silly. it's silly to point out the staid smugness and obnoxiousness of xgau claiming mccartney just inherently does not have the intellectual aptitude of lennon, reed, etc.?

everytime i think i might be curious to hear a mccartney album that i haven't heard (which would be most of them) i realize that i'm actually not that curious. same with all the fabs though. the man gave me helter skelter. i can't ask much more from a human being.

Many xposts:

Falling apart in a compelling way: Flipper; much postpunk stuff, I guess. "Louie Louie" by the Kingsmen!

no, I'm certainly not saying xgau ever made any claim about lennon or reed being "not art." i'm saying that mccartney's music was considered trite for, it seems to me, a lot of sixties/seventies vanguard critics who didn't want to accept this lack of "meaning" (or lack of identification with the counterculture given his marriage and family) in the music of an ex-beatle. and their really stringent criticisms seem very hard-nosed in retrospect given the aesthetic complexity or depth of some of that stuff, which obviously has a lot to do with why there has been so much critical reappraisal of mccartney's old catalog, particularly over the last decade. so yeah, i'm saying that in retrospect, it does seem to have involved a privileging of content over aesthetics (what i meant when i was using the term "art"0.

Some lyrics from the new McCartney album for what it's freaking worth:

Lightning hits the house of wax
Poets spill out on the street
To set alight the incomplete
Remainders of the future

Hidden in the yard, hidden in the yeard

Thunder drowns, the trumpets blast
Poets scatter through the night
But they can only dream of flight
Away from their confusion

Hidden in the yard underneath the wall
Buried deep below a thousand layers lay the answer to it all

Lightning hits the house of wax
Women scream and run around
To dance upon the battleground
Like wild demented horses

Hidden in the yard underneath the wall
Buried deep below a thousand layers lay the answer to it all

yeah yeah yeah, some good songs on new album, some slackass vacant drivel too, like in that ipod commercial or whatever it is (opposite of intended effect since it has me switching channels the second I spot it). Mitch Cohen in Creem, long ago, politely wished that "so many things did not come so easily for him," the temptation to be a talent bimbo, too often.Especially or mainly when he and Lennon were no longer competing (even before the official breakup, like on The Beatles [White Album], it's like "Got a track for your bloody harmonies""Well just shove it under the door and be quick about it") Yes, an effective and elusive foil for Lennon for a long time(and even a true collaborator, like apparently they both wrote parts of "A Day In The Life", but by Abbey Road, at least, he was settling for fragments, which were used effectively there, and sometimes in the solo work. But Run Devil Run seemed to deal indirectly with Linda's death, maybe Lennon's too; anyway it was his belated, and distanced equivalent, his resumed rivalry with Lennon, in that Run Devil Run had this harsh, armored, stoic, yet soulful sound, some relation to the tautness of Lennon's seemingly less guarded Plastic Ono Band, but note that xgau pointed out all the vocal processing, like Lennon knew the masks made his vaunted truthspeaking come across that much more vividly, bitingly. Xgau wasn't valuing topics over aesthetics, not there, and for the most part, not on Reed's albums (or that sound tips the scales re acceptance of topicality, of the toppermost of what's going in the grooves or whatever they are now)(that bit about Run Devil Run compared to PLO is mine, not a paraphrase of him, far as I know: he liked RDR, but I don't mean to put words in his mouth, or anybody's)

Run Devil Run also used 50s-based/-associated elements in compelling ways, which is quite a feat.Not that using any decade etc elements from the Lonnngass Age Of Rock isn't quite a feat, at this point, and for some time up to this point (how much has Sonic Youth ever done that the Velvet Underground didn't do better)

Run Devil Run has fuck all to do with Plastic Ono Band. "Less guarded" - who are you to say? And who are you and MITCH COHEN OF CREEM to say that his talent" comes so easily for him?" Not that that ever necessarily has much to do with how good a record is because we all know "Pushin' Too Hard" has two chords and was written in thirty minutes, etc.

Xgau wasn't valuing topics over aesthetics

As I said at least twice, he was valuing particular topics as Intellectually Advanced and it's a bunch of old line rockist b.s.

or that sound tips the scales re acceptance of topicality, of the toppermost of what's going in the grooves or whatever they are now

No idea what you're saying here.

Run Devil Run also used 50s-based/-associated elements in compelling ways, which is quite a feat

There's a great essay/review that still hasn't been written about this album, and it must use this as its premise. The only Paul-solo that moves to actual tears is his performance of the Vipers' "No Other Baby."

Hidden in the yard underneath the wall
Buried deep below a thousand layers lay the answer to it all

I thought it was blowing in the wind.

coupla guys sitting around talkin bout music...not as good as Big Jim McBob & Billy Saul Hurok on Farm Film Celebrity Blow-Up but what is?

i liked when bob was patronizing mccartney -- not as intellectual as lou reed oh noes what an insult -- and then interrupts himself for being "negative" like he just remembered WHERE HE'S WRITING NOW.

"three stars" = gentlemen's c

I thought it was blowing in the wind.

Not on the night when lightning struck the house of wax...

Who's to say what's too easy for him? The listener, when something oozes out of the speakers, all glib and half-assed, regardless of how much blood sweat & tears may have gone into what's supposed to sound effortlessy magical etc. "Tips the scales": the way it *sounds* is what can make topicality acceptable and appealing, not what the artist's topics/opinions are, but how they exist in context of the music. Topicality (like Lou's two cents on Jesse Jackson)often needs some scale-tipping.Even if xgau gives some topics more points than others,so what, why is that rockist, he's approved (some, not all) albums by Helen Reddy, Joanne Newsome, Garth Brooks, lotsa folks who don't have all that much to do with Lennon ripping the veil etc. Not saying John uber Paul or rock uber pop, just the "poor Paul/pop" thing gets irritating sometimes. Peace.

privileging of content over aesthetics

Nope again. Privileging content as part of aesthetics. (And like Don said, why not? Some songs are good in part because they're about something.) (Including a few of Paul's, I'd guess.)

obviously has a lot to do with why there has been so much critical reappraisal of mccartney's old catalog, particularly over the last decade.

Also, where exactly has this reappraisal been happening? Not being sarcastic; just never noticed Paul's work was being reappraised more than anybody else's work lately. Also never realized he was notably hated-upon by crits to begin with (those early editions of The Rollng Stone Record Guide sure gave Ram and Band On The Run and Venus And Mars and Tug Of War better scores than they gave any LPs by Sabbath or Nazareth), but maybe I just wasn't paying attention.

I never intended the charge of "privileging of content over aesthetics" to imply 100%-all-the-time-black-and-white-case-closed. I'm talking about in this particular instance. Christgau is still holding on to this 'Lennon-Dylan-Reed are Important' notion because of the particular topics dealt with in their songs. And yes I think it's old line rockism that values this grappling with the particular psychological and sociopolitical issues deemed progressive at the time. In this context, Lou Reed's glib and half-assed vacant drivel is surely more easily excused than McCartney's because Lou was apparently sociolgically relevant and progressive whereas Paul was just a baby. Oh, and obviously not as well-endowed mentally.

where exactly has this reappraisal been happening?

Just my general sense - maybe I'm wrong. I've found the number of people really talking about McCartney solo albums on ILM over the last couple of years and the fact that Ram won the album poll amazing.

Wait, what album poll? I must have missed that one, but I only look at polls about the Pazz&Jop polls usually, so not surprising. (And Ram got four stars out of five in those old Rolling Stone guides; again, how can you reappraise something that critics never much disliked to begin with?) (Or did they? Christgau did give it a C+, it looks like. But then, he often goes against the grain on such stuff.)

Hmmm...Didn't score in Pazz & Jop in '71, so perhaps you're right. (Like I said, I've never really paid attention to critics' responses to Paul much at all):

http://robertchristgau.com/xg/pnj/pjres71.php

Also Don I'll grant half-assed on some of McCartney's stuff but "glib" is more of a character accusation that I'm not sure he's really deserved all that much. "Temptation to be a talent bimbo, all too often" - "bimbo" again seemingly implying superficiality. I think it's more that he's just always worked, always made records, and had too often (but let's not overstate how often because he's also managed to continue to be interesting very often!) settled for material that just sort of OK.

2x-post: yeah, the ILM McCartney albums poll. Meltzer hated McCartney, Bangs hated McCartney. I guess you can take it on a case-by-case basis. (Who is the "J.S." that did the McCartney write-up in the early RS Record Guide, by the way? There's no J.S. listed amongst the authors.)

x-post: yes, totally not surprising to me that it didn't make the top 30 in pazz and jop.

Wouldn't J.S. be John Swenson (whoever he is or was), who edited the entire RS guides with Marsh?

Oh, OK.

Maybe pop guys like Mendelsohn and Greg Shaw would have like a record like Ram - I don't know.

MACCA SOLO ALBUMS!

I definitely recall that McCartney II, which came in second in the poll, was pretty much universally hammered when it came out.

Xgau gave it a C; RS Guide gave it 3 stars -- so not quite univerally hammered, at least. (It's got "Coming Up" on it, right? I've always liked that tune. Doubt I've ever heard the whole album, though.)

Has there ever been a best-of LP compiling his late '70s/early '80s disco/new wave era hit singles? If so, I should get that. I bet I'd like it a lot.

Wingspan will do, but it's two discs. You can find All The Best for cheap. Neither, though, has "Press."

I remember this one review of McCartney II that said, "When I heard Paul McCartney's new album, I felt my lunch coming up."

it's two discs

Yikes. I was thinking more in the realm of 12 songs, along the lines of my all-time favorite McCartney album Wings Greatest Hits (which would have been even better if it had 11.)

ringo

in re: ram and reappraisal, i've just been listening to the new josh ritter album (which is good) and he says ram was his major influence going into the studio. which, his album doesn't really sound like ram but i can hear what he means in the looseness and whatnot. ram makes sense as a diy touchstone. but so anyway, maybe ram is this year's album to be influenced by, i don't know.

I think I'm coming to some realization of why I enjoy RC. This is a more or less negative review that also helps sum up why I (and, I presume, other listeners) like the record (and the genre). Bonus: I now know I should check out Stan Kenton:

December Underground [Interscope, 2006]
Never let it be said that the youth of America can't recognize quality. These guys are spectacularly expert--with their dybbuk-or-angel vocal switchoffs, compulsive tempo shifts, dramatic dynamics, and multiple melodic and rhythmic elements, they're as exhausting to listen to as Stan Kenton, and with almost as much insight into the human heart. They predicate their worldview on their inability to win the love of Lara Croft, who led them on in a summer romance they now realize was an amoral farrago of lies and deception. So they consign her to many different hells, from ordinary suicide to my favorite: "Watch the stars turn you to nothing." And she thought she was so great. C+

(Haven't heard any solo McCartney but I just want to mention that "For No One" really succeeds on an intellectual level for me. And that Sonic Youth did a lot that wasn't done better by the Velvet Underground.)

"solo McC albums." I've heard songs of course.

[one of the best threads i've read on ILM in a while, thanks guys!]

Dylan quoted as saying, "I'm in awe of McCartney."

Also, Memory Almost Full is really good.

I heard it in the Whole Foods the other day

that was quite enough

THIS JUST IN: MACCA DISCOVERS THE UKELIELIEE

One of the reasons I should get one of those Rhapsody or eMusic subs is is to make my own Paul comp; but meanwhile, craving that modencholy vocal with other output, think I'll dig up battered old LP of Andy Fairweather Low's La Booga Rooga, one of my most-played of the 70s. Xgau got me into him. The 70s Guide is my most-read xgau book, certainly most evocative of the Guides, though I should read more of the collected essays. And this is from one of my favorite in the 70s Guide: "Randy Newman: Born Again (Warner Bros '79) This has more content and feeling then Little Criminals...the content comprises ever more intricate convolutions of bad taste; rather than making you think about homophobes and heavy-metal toughs and me-decade assholes the way he once made you think about rednecks and slave traders and high school belles, he makes you think about how he feels about them. Which just isn't as interesting. B+" Yeah, if the writer's engagement with the subject can lead the listener to more direct engagement, via a dissolving middleman! And if the reviewer could do that too--it's tricky, especially when it is a Consumer's Guide, you gotta get on with it, hence the grades, for those who really just want that aspect. But it's a hell of a thing to try: and getting people to say, "What the hell does he mean?" can work great, IF you can get them irritated times intrigued enough to think it through. Sundar, I don't dismiss all Sonic Youth, but my fave tracks are atypical, like when they cool it with the guitars and give it up to the beats, on "Hits Of Sunshine (For Allen Ginsberg)" (feeding the imagery some hits of wit doesn't hurt either). If you want to check Stan Kenton, start with the CD version (bonus tracks, crystalline sound) of an LP that Robert Stone said he used to trip to in the 50s, City Of Glass.

I think there was a thread where we could ask what RC means by some of his comments. I usually get him OK but I'm genuinely unsure what this actually means, from his Close to the Edge review:

Conclusion: At the level of attention they deserve they're a one-idea group. Especially with Jon and Rick up front.

Does this just mean "They're a one-idea group and they don't deserve to be regarded as anything more?" (And if so, I'm not sure it jives with the rest of the review, which seems to give them credit for more than one idea.) Or does it mean "They have far too many ideas for their own good. In fact, the result is such a mess that, really, they're no better than a one-idea group and deserve only that level of attention. Especially since the singer and keyboard player suck so much?"

(BTW thanks for the Stan Kenton tip. Just saw that now.)

It might just mean that xgau doesn't like the "idea" of the group's existence itself (whatever the hell that may have been), and found it to be an all-too-convenient way of dissing them. This is probably the most annoying aspect of his writing/thinking, as far as I'm concerned; he doesn't like the artist/group for purely ethical/moral reasons (e.g. Dre, GnR, Death Certificate, etc.), but can't really find anything concrete about the record itself to fault. So, here comes the "easy" putdown, that often as not, doesn’t have all that much to do with the music/performances he's wrestling with in the first place. {Does that even make any sense? It's back to the crack-rock grind for me, I guess.)

They're a one-idea group and their one idea is the seasons of man "or something like that." So the quintessential refrain of "I get up I get down" and all that eclecticism get applied to the seasons of man theme.

John, I don't see how ethical/moral issues are not concrete things in music. That notorious verse in "One in a Million" is about as concrete as things ever get in music.

But in all those reviews you mentioned, he does talk about "music/performance." In the GNR review: "Axl's voice is a power tool with attachments, Slash's guitar a hype, the groove potent "hard rock," and the songwriting not without its virtues. So figure musical quality at around C plus..." And also re: "One in a Million": "(The notorious verse) is disgusting because it's heartfelt and disgusting again because it's a grandstand play.

His review of The Chronic is almost entirely about music. In fact, it's explicitly so since he immediately moves from the casual violence of Dre's lyrics (but also sound) to his sample-less production.

And he does discuss the music in his Ice Cube feature. But as he says, "So hubba hubba and big fucking deal...Its Good Qualities still don't come close to making up for its Offensive Content."

I think there was a thread where we could ask what RC means by some of his comments.

Oooh. Does anyone know where this thread is?