The other night I watched part of the program on PBS honoring Paul McCartney (officially Sir Paul McCartney, but please), as he received the third annual Gershwin Prize for Popular Song from the Library of Congress. The program took place at the White House, with President Obama and family in the front row. McCartney and other performers did a selection of his songs. I missed most of the other performers, except for an all-right version of Baby, You Can Drive My Car, by the Jonas Brothers -- a very young group, with whom I am totally unfamiliar -- during which I was completely distracted by the lead singer's hair, which literally covered practically his entire face. I know that some of the time he was singing with hair in his mouth, which could not be pleasant.
But anyway. Listening to McCartney sing, I was reminded that he was never the strongest of singers, and his voice hasn't gotten any stronger with age. This guy is no spring chicken -- he was born in 1942 -- but there he is with brown hair. I've complained before (Note of June 13, 2008) about the double standard that forces women to color their hair, while men are allowed to grey naturally. But in the world of rock music this is obviously not so. Two of the Rolling Stones -- who are all well into their 60s, and looking genuinely old -- also "still" have brown hair. Their peers -- we baby boomers who may be aging but still love rock and roll -- might accept them with grey hair, but presumably not the young whippersnappers who buy the records and go to the concerts.
While watching the PBS program, I was also reminded of the book I recently plowed through (it's a BIG book): The Beatles, by Bob Spitz. In it, McCartney comes across as the most traditionally ambitious of all the Beatles, the most realistic, the best at ingratiating himself with people. This tribute at the White House is surely an illustration of all of these qualities serving the man, and providing him with those things he wanted out of life.
The book provides a fascinating portrait of the "four lads from Liverpool," who really did change popular music dramatically (I can hear my friend Clifford saying, "Not for the better!"). This relatively restrained Beatlemaniac (see Note of Nov. 30, 2009 for my version of Beatlemania) was surprised to learn about all the unpleasant realities that she was totally unaware of, during that time when she was busy thinking of the Beatles as so cute, funny, talented, and different. They were all of that, but as four very young, unsophisticated men who suddenly found themselves a totally unexpected wildly successful (originally their ambition had been to be the best rock band in Liverpool) they didn't lose any time immersing themselves in sex, drugs and rock and roll. Indeed, I had no idea that drugs played such a huge part in the lives of all four men, but especially John Lennon, who resorted to LSD frequently, once he'd been turned on to it, and was even addicted to heroine for a while. Apparently during many of the later recording sessions drugs both played a big part in the interesting sounds and effects they created, and in the rapidly disintegrating relations among the four men (in particular Paul and John, who were always in a kind of competition for leader of the pack).
I was surprised to learn what a nasty piece of work John Lennon was in general. He always hated the jolly, clean-cut, well-dressed image that Brian Epstein, the Beatles' manager, insisted they adhere to. That image worked magnificently, but John chafed under it. He was the original "angry young man," and his preferred persona, which he adopted when he first started playing the guitar at 15, and formed his first band, was that of what the British called a teddy boy, what we Americans would call a punk. Tight jeans, leather jacket, hair slicked back in a duck tail, cigarette hanging out of his mouth (all the Beatles were heavy smokers). When the Beatles went into their psychedelic phase, in the late 60s, and dropped the neat (if long) haircuts and buttoned-up suits, John became truly shaggy and scruffy looking. He was always wanting to shock people, shake 'em up, while Paul wanted to make them happy, give them what they wanted.
And you see who got the prestigious Gershwin award, even though there is no question that all of McCartney's best work was done with John Lennon. Of course, Lennon was shot to death at the tragically young age of 42, but I can't see him ever doing anything so main-stream as appearing at the White House to accept an award from the Library of Congress. But...we'll never know.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I wonder what the author's point is ?
..."If you stick around long enough"
aahh....what happens?
....Listening to McCartney sing, I was reminded that he was never the strongest of singers,
Reminded?
Pray tell, who would you place in the category of 'strongest of singers'?
Actually, It doesn't really matter.
The comment alone indicates you have no credibility for judging singing.
And, so you read a book about the Beatles?, the additional comments indicate little sense of the fellas or their time.
The author's point? If you stick around long enough, they give you an award. Strong singers? Frank Sinatra, Bing Crosby, Johnny Mathis, Don & Harold Reid (the Statler Brothers), Elvis Presley, Eric Burton, Tom Jones (whom i don't like, but he's a strong singer), Ray Charles (the difference between him and McCartney when they sang together was striking) Bob Seger, Billy Joel...and John Lennon. To name a few. And I'm always amused by people who assume that because you do not agree with them you "have no credibility for judging." We're all entitled to our opinion, my friend.
....Ray Charles (the difference between him and McCartney when they sang together was striking)
Exactly when and what was this?
Mea culpa -- It was Stevie Wonder McCartney sang "Ebony and Ivory" with on the program (and the recording), not Ray Charles. But Ray Charles is a strong singer, too. :-)
I also have to apologize to Eric Burdon for misspelling his name.
Ok, Been busy. And didn't know if there was any reason to return.
This remark, ....Listening to McCartney sing, I was reminded that he was never the strongest of singers, and his voice hasn't gotten any stronger with age.
Still don't 'get it'.
Ok, your list of 'strong singers'. I'm familiar with all.
Even the Statler Bros and certainly the lead singer of the Animals. They may be among your favorites but don't see how they represent 'strong singers' vs SIR Paul. Not at all.
But then you confuse Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder. Yeah they are black. uhuh. But.
So it's come to the realization, however incomprehensible, that you've also confused Paul with someone else? Maybe, my good friend and his, George?
Nevertheless it is easy to disprove Sir Paul does not belong to any group of 'not strong' singers.
I offer a handful of examples. Quite variable performances - Enjoy.
Paul McCartney - Maybe I'm Amazed (1974 Studio Rehearsal)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Vl2ss9ouVY&feature=related
Beatles - Till There Was You - Live In Royal Variety 1963
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T8eUqIW3as
Paul McCartney - Till There Was You 2006
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJaap5XwiPA&feature=related
THE BEATLES - AND I LOVE HER 1964
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POasARl9CLI
Paul McCartney And I Love Her Toronto 8-8-10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGSTLM0fPpA&feature=channel
Paul McCartney - I've Got a Feeling - Philadelphia August 14, 2010 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1vk6rsbtVw&feature=channel
Paul McCartney - Chaos & Creation at Abbey Road 6-7-2006
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ndm4T4LY8KY&feature=related
Post a Comment