[SonicBebs]

interesting thread

the trouble i get is that when someone describes their own work as 'Avant-Garde' or 'experimental' i get suspicious. Surley if your creating something worthwhile it will come out in whatever form is most honest to you?

By trying tio be avant-garde or experimantal or whatever (in essence, by "trying to be" rather than just "being") doesn't it make the piece invalid?

[demonrail666]

I think that can be the case. But if someone says they're trying to make, say, a rap record does that make it invalid compared with someone who just starts rapping into a tape recorder? Surely the real test is the end result. The problem with a word like 'avant-garde' I suppose is that it has certain associations with value as much as it does style. To make an avant-garde piece is often perceived as superior to making something, for want of a better description, 'conventional'.

Ultimately though, I think "trying to be" avant-garde is an acceptable method so long as the result is itself "avant-garde" (whatever that may be). Saying that, McCartney has, to my knowledge, never really tried to be avant-garde and nor has anything he's ever done really fit into that category. I think in his case it's more that he was interested in what people working within the avant-garde were doing, and tried to incorporate some of their ideas into his own work. The same could be said of his so-called 'classical' work which, if you listen to it (not that anyone should, on account of its utter shittiness) is far more akin to some of the soundtrack work he did in the sixties with George Martin than it is classical in the usual sense. It seems that here again, Paul was more interested in adopting ideas from another style and adapting them to his own than moving head-first into it.
In that sense I suppose it's more a case of inspiration rather than aspiration.

[SonicBebs]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

In that sense I suppose it's more a case of inspiration rather than aspiration.

thats a very good point, theres nothing wrong with drawing inspiration from any/everything

[demonrail666]

I think there's an interesting parallel to be drawn here between McCartney and Holger Czukay. Both bass players, obviously, but also two musicians who came from opposing musical backgrounds that became inspired by what was happening at opposing ends of their spectrum. What's key for me though is that both had sufficient confidence in their own abilities not to want to completely abandon one style for the other, preferring instead to create a kind of hybrid between the two. I'd have to say that, in their respective pursuit of this, Czukay was without question the more successful of the two, but the parallel still holds some water I think.

[RdTv]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

I think there's an interesting parallel to be drawn here between McCartney and Holger Czukay. Both bass players, obviously, but also two musicians who came from opposing musical backgrounds that became inspired by what was happening at opposing ends of their spectrum. What's key for me though is that both had sufficient confidence in their own abilities not to want to completely abandon one style for the other, preferring instead to create a kind of hybrid between the two. I'd have to say that, in their respective pursuit of this, Czukay was without question the more successful of the two, but the parallel still holds some water I think.

Agreed. Bottom line: Pop or Avantegarde, Can's music sounds much better and is still influencial today, both directly and indirectly. While most Wings output is forgettable and listened to mainly for nostalgic purposes.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by RdTv

Agreed. Bottom line: Pop or Avantegarde, Can's music sounds much better and is still influencial today, both directly and indirectly. While most Wings output is forgettable and listened to mainly for nostalgic purposes.

Well yeah but, to be fair, I was thinking more of McCartney's work with The Beatles than with Wings. Not wishing to undermine the magnificence of a song like 'Jet', it was hardly any kind of union between pop and the avant-garde. But yes, I do think Can were a more successful hybrid than The Beatles - and that even within the Beatles itself, John was probably the more successful at fusing the two currents than Paul was.

[SonicBebs]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2008...eman-interview

more macca bollocks

[demonrail666]

I think he's honest about the Beatles period in that interview. He WAS hanging out with Ginsberg and Burroughs, etc. And Dunbar himself has confirmed that his now lost experimental tape loops did exist at one time.

Regarding his later 'experiments' I have the new Firemen CD and frankly it's rubbish. A sort of lazy, middle of the road new age thing that at times comes close to some of Harrison's electronic solo stuff in the late sixties, but isn't anywhere near as good in my opinion. I think the problem with him working in collaboration with Youth is that he's overawed by the ex-Beatle (despite Maccas claims to the contrary in an interview in The Stool Pigeon, i read recently.) I've always thought that if McCartney were to work with a producer now, it should be Eno. I think there'd be a mutual respect in that partnership that I simply can't think of with any other candidate. If anyone could uncover whether there's any creative juices left in McCartney, it's him.

Although I have to admit that all this is only of any real significance to boring old Maccaphiles like myself. That anyone else would be even the slightest bit interested in McCartney's bid to re-establish himself is slim indeed. I gave up waiting for him to do anything worthwhile along time ago. I just keep buying his stuff, reading his interviews, following his career out of a kind of bizarre, and increasingly masochistic, habit that, frankly, I'd do well to kick.

Oh, and if he did invent electro, then my name is Ralf Hutter.

[SonicBebs]

yeah, sorry. I didn't mean bollocks as in 'lies', i meant bollocks as in 'not that interesting' to most people. I love that he hung out with Ginsberg and Buroughs but i dont expect most people to care!

[SonicBebs]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2008...ney-thebeatles

he's at it again. Now he's claiming that he was the political Beatle

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by SonicBebs

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2008...ney-thebeatles

he's at it again. Now he's claiming that he was the political Beatle

Thanks for that. I'll definitely need to pick up the next issue of Prospect to get the full interview.
From that article's account, I think Paul might be overdoing it with words like 'politicised'. He may have been the first to be exposed to what was going on in Vietnam (as much through his contact with Ginsberg as with his meeting with Russell). He may also have been the one who then informed the rest of the band about what was going on. But being aware, and even shocked, by events doesn't necessarily lead to a process of politicisation. To be honest, I'm doubtful as to just how politicised the Beatles ever really were - even in the late sixties: a time when it was a very much a required stance within the 'underground'. They never to my knowledge recorded a particularly pro-Revolution song ('Revolution' is hardly a call to arms in that sense) and songs such as 'All You Need is Love' hardly reflected the more militant, radical turn emerging within the counter-culture at that time. Certainly by around 67-68 it was the Stones, not the Beatles, who were beginning to be seen as the more 'radical' by an increasingly politicised Underground. So while I'd still say that Lennon was the more politically aware Beatle, I think it was Yoko, not Paul, who had the greatest influence on his move in this area - and that this took place largely after he'd left the Beatles (and Britain) altogether.

It raises an interesting point though. Thanks again for the link.