Montreal Escorts

Paul McCartney Carpool Karaoke

GaryH

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2014
385
285
63
Sambuca - Does the dominance of English in global culture give bands recording in English an insurmountable advantage from sheer market size and exposure? Or, is the music that comes out of English-speaking countries generally more creative than anything being produced elsewhere?

What an interesting question! England is a relatively small country but has produced so many great artists. But relatively few have come from Europe. Or look at Russia. The country is huge and had many famous classical composers. Are there great artists there that we have never heard because they don't record in English?
 

EagerBeaver

Veteran of Misadventures
Jul 11, 2003
19,300
2,615
113
U.S.A.
Visit site
I always felt like England or the UK produced a disproportionate number of quality musicians even as compared to other English speaking countries like the US, Canada and Australia. This is why they called the 1960s the “British Invasion” and then in the early 1980s we had the “Second British Invasion.”

It may be that the social scene in the UK was more nurturing for young musicians or it just could be that the English are really good at doing music (and theater for that matter). I once had a long conversation with a Welsh friend of mine on this very subject.

Regarding The Rolling Stones, they are/were immensely talented musicians as well. Mick Jagger is actually in the Beatles official “A Day In The Life” video. Interestingly The Rolling Stones were marketed as the “bad boys” and the Beatles the “good boys” who sang about love and peace. Ironically however Jagger and Richards are college educated whereas the Beatles were working class boys. Yet they were all friendly with each other. I did read an interview in which Jagger said that in the 1960s he was occasionally approached by John and Paul “hustling” songs they presumably didn’t want or need. Jagger didn’t interpret it as them trying to sell off their chaff, however. He was amused by it. I believe there was some behind the scenes collaborations between the bands that did not result in official collaborations, however.
 

sambuca

Active Member
Sep 9, 2015
837
2
38
I'll certainly give you the importance of the English on rock music.

If you really want a deep-dive on this English-speaking dominance of rock music, we might have to give credit to early 20th century African-Americans who drove the sound that became rock & roll. Both the Beatles and Rolling Stones (among others) were greatly influenced by rhythm & blues and African-American songwriters/musicians. This fusion of cultures Black/White/American/British was a powerful force globally.

I find it interesting on how hip-hop and rap has also influenced global music today particularly Latin America.
 

GaryH

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2014
385
285
63
In 2014, Pointe-à-Callière Museum had an exhibit of the Beatles in Montreal. One room had an exhibit of Quebec's French answer to the Beatles in the 1960's (I forget their name). They had the Beatle style haircuts, sang Beatle and other songs in French, and made videos where they jumped and goofed around like the early Beatles video. There were archived Montreal newspaper articles that said they could be bigger than the Beatles. They actually had some songs that were #1 on the local Montreal radio stations. Yet here we are today and I have no idea what there name was. I don't believe their fame extended past the Quebec borders.

I suspect there were acts like this in other European countries who were successful locally but couldn't expand nationally. Was non-English the reason? Even Abba recorded in English to achieve their world success.
 

EagerBeaver

Veteran of Misadventures
Jul 11, 2003
19,300
2,615
113
U.S.A.
Visit site
Too much is being made of English first language as a reason for the Beatles' international popularity. First of all, the Beatles became wildly popular in countries like Japan where almost no English is spoken. Had John not been killed and had the Beatles gotten back together for a tour in their primes, they would have sold out large venues in many countries where the majority of fans do not speak any English at all. The chief reason for their popularity wide and far is immense musical talent. Ditto with the Rolling Stones.

As to the question of whether an obscure but similarly talented French or Spanish or other non-ENGLISH first language musical band was not discovered because of the language barrier, I simply do not believe this. Someone else noted the example of Abba- if a band shows promise to make money in their own language, someone will sell them the idea to do an English language album. Where money is to be made, it is generally not in human nature that smart people leave it on the table. There have not been any such megatalented non English bands that failed to rise to prominence due to not performing in English or being poor or obscure- talent is usually found and ridden to the bank if shows promise, in the arts as in sports. The Beatles and Rolling Stones were isolated instances of several talented persons combining in one band to produce internationally famous music that has been repeatedly covered in MANY languages by many artists. It's a talent issue, not a language issue, as to the reason for their success. Talent such as was possessed by the Beatles and Rolling Stones is less than generational, it's more like centennial type talent that comes around once every 100 years. It just happened to happen at the same time in the 1960s that those two bands emerged. Sort of like DaVinci and Michelangelo being somewhat contemporaneous.

The Beatles also had a rare gift for making musical chemistry and timing seem easy. I have been told by professional musicians that a lot of their music is hard to play right because of the beats and timing, and Ringo Starr is cited as being a really, really good drummer who could adapt his beats to songs as needed in ways that are not so easy to do. Professional musicians also refer to something called "musicality" - a professional keyboardist who once played with Prince said he had it in spades. So did the Beatles.
 

sambuca

Active Member
Sep 9, 2015
837
2
38
I personally don't think the English language is the reason for the profound influence of the Beatles and the Rolling Stones. Obviously it helps a band launch globally if it records in English. Otherwise, I presume a band would be limited to a local or regional phenomenon. I asked the question because someone might argue there are incredible, prolific talents in Asia, Latin America, etc. that are just not given global exposure.

Rock&Roll was created and mutated many times by English speakers. I don't know what's in the DNA of Brit, American, Aussie, Canadian and Irish musicians that allow them to shape and innovate Rock&Roll. Perhaps English is the mother tongue of Rock&Roll while Rhythm & Blues is its heartbeat.
 

GaryH

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2014
385
285
63
are you thinking of les baronet et les claselle they ve done beatles music in french among other group

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...CBDFDA1805782DF30E11CBDFDA180578&&FORM=VDRVRV

Nylonlegs - Yes I believe this is what I was referring to. Thank you for the link. i found the exhibit in Montreal on the Beatles one day visit in 1964 fascinating. The museum did a wonderful job with Beatle artifacts (like Lennon's rolls royce psychedelic car) and also the history. The English still controlled most of the media in Montreal then, and they banned any French reporters from asking the Beatles any questions at the new conference. One French reporter did interrupt and asked Lennon if he knew the French media was banned. Lennon said that he did not even know what city they were in.

BTW, McCartney's September concert in Montreal sold out in 5 minutes today. Not bad for an old guy. I guess that carpool karaoke appearance did the trick. Lol.
 

EagerBeaver

Veteran of Misadventures
Jul 11, 2003
19,300
2,615
113
U.S.A.
Visit site
Yesterday while shopping I grabbed brunch at a local place which was playing a steady stream of music from the 1970s: Hall and Oates, Boz Scaggs, Chicago, Gordon Lightfoot, etc. While I was eating my bagel this McCartney/Wings tune came on:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=re61B8sKQWk

What is interesting about the song is the doorbell is a long chime of the kind that was heard often in the 1970s but not so much anymore. Here is the live version of the song as performed by McCartney with Wings in 1976:

https://www.google.com/search?sourc...-ab..2.17.1926...0i131k1j0i10k1.0.QicCCZ9wvcY

This made me wonder, now that McCartney is almost 80 years old and doing karaoke videos to stimulate concert attendnace, how many Beatles songs he is doing vs. how many songs he did with Wings, like Let Em In. Although Let Em In was a big hit in the 1970s, I would think the Beatles songs might be a tad more familiar to younger fans under the age of 40. What do you think?
 

GaryH

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2014
385
285
63
When he last played in Montreal in 2011, my notes of the show had him doing 25 Beatle songs and 12 Wings/solo songs. I would think his upcoming tour would have a similar split with perhaps a couple of songs from the new album he is trying to sell. Of course the loudest cheers were for "Let It Be" and "Hey Jude" but his Wings' songs "Band on the Run" and "Live and Let Die" received as large an ovation as the other Beatle songs. Interesting that he did "Michelle" only in Montreal on that tour.
 

GaryH

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2014
385
285
63
https://www.nme.com/blogs/nme-blogs/lord-ringo-beatles-lord-rings-movie-wouldve-crap-2361750

If you think the "I am the Walrus" was a trippy video, how about if the Beatles made a Lord of the Rings movie? Apparently the movie studio acquired the rights but Tolkein said no. Would have made everyone forget "Magical Mystery Tour" (in a bad way).

Also in the news today ,49 years after they parted ways, there are mathematicians actually spending time analyzing their songs to discover if John or Paul actually wrote songs credited to both.
https://phys.org/news/2018-07-lennon-mccartney-statistical-analysis-authorship.html

Next up they will scientifically prove how many holes could actually fill the Albert Hall.
 

Red Paul

Active Member
Jun 6, 2003
705
66
28
Visit site
When he last played in Montreal in 2011, my notes of the show had him doing 25 Beatle songs and 12 Wings/solo songs.

The split has been majority-Beatles/minority-Wings since the late '80s, or so I heard on a Beatles podcast.

At the end of the '70s, the joke often circulated that one kid was heard explaining to another that the Beatles were Paul McCartney's band before Wings. A decade later and that was all forgotten. Paul had gone from being chiefly a pop star in his own right to being chiefly a great, great oldies act, and his greatest and most beloved oldies are almost all Beatles tunes.
 

Meta not Meta

Active Member
Dec 26, 2016
603
42
28
GaryH, I read the article but I had thought virtually all Lennon/McCartney songs from as early as '65 were entirely the work of one or the other but were credited to both for contractual reasons. I certainly never thought of In My Life as anything other than a Lennon song, though if I remember correctly, with substantial contributions from George Martin ....

PS It's very hard to imagine a Stanley Kubrick directed LOTR, the sociopathic cynicism and machine-like behaviour of his characters being so contrary to the spirit of both the Fab 4 and Tolkien himself ....
 

GaryH

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2014
385
285
63
GaryH, I read the article but I had thought virtually all Lennon/McCartney songs from as early as '65 were entirely the work of one or the other but were credited to both for contractual reasons. I certainly never thought of In My Life as anything other than a Lennon song ....

Meta - I think the confusion came in because Paul said that he wrote the music for "In My Life", and John said that Paul just wrote the middle section of the song. These mathematicians also researched "The Word" which John sings and said that their analysis indicates that Paul wrote most of the song. An interesting read but it doesn't change my feelings of the songs.
 

Meta not Meta

Active Member
Dec 26, 2016
603
42
28
Yes, but I guess I'm struggling a little to find the areas of true contestation. Certainly they helped each other out with ideas and advice, but it's pretty clear who did what, even to a layman like me. Thanks for the read ....
 

EagerBeaver

Veteran of Misadventures
Jul 11, 2003
19,300
2,615
113
U.S.A.
Visit site
In My Life

With regard to "in My Life", the only thing I am buying as a McCartney contribution is the piano solo that starts at around 1:28. The whole rest of the song sounds very distinctively Lennonesque to me, musically, lyrically, and in every way, based on my own ear test:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=En4fyOf-X1E

See this article:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science...emembers-writing-life-says-harvard-analysing/

This song, along with "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds", "I Am The Walrus", and "Strawberry Fields Forever", are among John Lennon's great work with the Beatles in 1966-1967 before he started to lose interest in the band in favor of other activities.

"A Day In The Life", on the other hand, is a legitimate collaborative effort of Lennon and McCartney, where they each wrote and sang distinctive parts of the song, although it is Lennon in the beginning and the end and Paul towards the middle. Note the appearance of Mick Jagger in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usNsCeOV4GM
 

Frank Drebin

New Member
Sep 2, 2010
79
1
0
McCartney knows nothing else to do, he has all the money he needs. This return to music is an attempt to see if he can get it up again.
 

EagerBeaver

Veteran of Misadventures
Jul 11, 2003
19,300
2,615
113
U.S.A.
Visit site
My father’s the same age as McCartney and what I noticed is guys that age like to beat their chests and claim they can still do whatever it is they did. My father was an accountant so I send him my financial statements periodically to give him something to do, and he will send me back a pretty good analysis also claiming that it was a good analysis for a retired geezer. As sons we should all give our Fathers the proverbial chest pounding opportunities if we can.
 

sambuca

Active Member
Sep 9, 2015
837
2
38
It's interesting that they applied all that science to analyze "In My Life". I never thought it was anything but a Lennon song.

I believe great songwriters can approach writing a song from lyrical inspiration or melodic inspiration. Sometimes they are such great songwriters they can be inspired by one to write a great song and in the end you would think the inspiration came from the other. So with that, I find the words to "In My Life" to be so poetic that I would have to believe the words inspired the song. It is such a touching, sentimental song.
 

EagerBeaver

Veteran of Misadventures
Jul 11, 2003
19,300
2,615
113
U.S.A.
Visit site
I think all that science was applied because of the McCartney claim that he wrote the song. I think Paul misremembered but he may have written the mid song piano solo. That is the only thing in the song that doesn’t sound Lennonesque.

The authorship is significant because it ranked #23 on Rolling Stone’s 500 best songs of all time.
 
Toronto Escorts