jakobnicholas

I found this Paul quote: PAUL 1988: "We knew we were good. People used to say to us, 'Do you think John and you are good songwriters?' and I'd say-- "Yeah it may sound conceited but it would be stupid of me to say 'No, I don't,' or 'Well, we're not bad' because we are good." Let's face it. If you were in my position, which was working with John Lennon, who was a great, great man-- It's like that film 'Little Big Man.' He says, 'We wasn't just playing Indians, we was LIVIN' Indians.' And that's what it was. I wasn't just talking about it, I was living it. I was actually working with the great

Yes. I agree. What'd be Paul's legacy had he died after Band on the Run? Or even Back to the Egg?

Really?! Paul's songs were very popular, but it seems in the world of big-time music geeks (like myself) that Lennon was the cool and hip Beatle who made the more meaningful music. I know some who like John and his music better. To them, Paul was good, but not at the genius level of Lennon. I don't agree with that nor do I really care. I just find all the Lennon/McCartney history to be fascinating. I read that it was Paul's idea to have each member have a jam-out right before "The End" on Abbey Road. Ringo had his lone drum solo, and McCartney, Lennon and Harrison each got a few g

There's so many stories and opinions on which songwriter did what on which Beatles songs. Most agree that Lennon was the superior lyricist and was "cooler" in his rock n' roll sensiblities. And most agree that Paul was technically a better musician and knew melodies and how to make a song sound great. Obviously, it was that combination that made their songs so damned great. What I find interesting, and wonder about, is how much collaboration there was....especially on the later records. Most know how Paul helped make John's "Day in the Life" better, or how John helped Paul's "We Can Work it

I have HUGE respect for Jeff....one of the best songwriter's ever. And he's deserving of being the head of Wilco. But it's interesting how Jay Farrar, Jay Bennett and Billy Bragg all seemingly had or have odds with Tweedy, yet Jeff seems to be the only one who comes out smelling like a rose. Most....on this board especially...always talk more like Farrar and Bennett were the bad guys, not Tweedy. I think they're all the same....not good OR bad...just strong-willed people with their own unique creative vision.

My main point is that I think Jay was led on by Jeff, intentionally or not, to think he had as much say in the music as Jeff did. Clearly, Jeff had something bigger and more specific in his mind than Jay did when making YHF. But I can understand Jay being a little upset that Jeff (seemingly) was making all the final decisions on songs, when it's obvious Jay was maybe making equal decisions on Summerteeth and Mermaid. (I agree the final YHF mix is amazing. But I actually like the YHF demos even MORE.)

This is the Jeff/Jay part of the RS interview. Inside the parenthisis is MY thoughts: Rolling Stone: The band these days seems to operated so smoothly. How is it different from the one that made "Summerteeth"? Jeff: Well, that band was very strained; it wasn't a cohesive unit (Jay wanted more say in the music). Summerteeth had a really fracturing kind of environment (Jay and I had different visions for how songs should sound). Jay Bennett in particular was emerging as a divisive force within the band (Jay didn't always agree with Jeff). He kind of positioned himself as my right-hand guy (m

Grumpy much? I sense Jeff was just done with Jay. And I don't really blame him. Then, when Jay started talking about deserving more money then dropping a lawsuit, Jeff understandably was probably pissed all to hell. I'm just saying, it's my sense that Jeff isn't over all that yet. He's human. But as an outsider, who loved both Jay and Jeff and the music they made together, I wish Jay got more credit. I don't recall McCartney OR Lennon bending over backwards to compliment each other after the break-up. Finally, 20-plus years after, I read many quotes from Paul saying how blessed he fe

You're right. Maybe Eastman would have done just as bad. But Klein had a history of not being on the up-and-up. For me, it's refreshing to read a Beatles article that gives Paul a little credit. Maybe he WAS a control-freak egomaniac. But maybe had he NOT been, Sgt. Pepper's and all the albums after that don't get made. The fact he put up with all the Yoko shit should be reason enough to like Paul. I can understand Lennon not wanting to play on what he thought to be a silly Paul song (Obli-Dee, Obli-Da), but I don't blame Paul for trying to keep Revolution #9 off the White Album......I s

Oh darn. You got me. That sounds like Jeff's released statement after hearing about his death. I think long-time Wilco fans think MUCH more of Jay than things I've read from Tweedy. I don't really blame Jeff. Jay clearly did things to piss him off. I'm just a fan, and when I listen to the records with Jay's contributions, I can HEAR what he contributed. With Bennett, it was Wilco. After Bennett, it's been The Jeff Tweedy Band.

I don't know. It's an even-handed article. I don't sense he sides with Paul OR John: Though Lennon is more commonly regarded as the Beatles' true genius (which is inarguable: he wrote the bulk of their masterpieces and until the last couple years of their career, wrote the best tracks on their albums), it is also fair to say that without McCartney, the Beatles would not have mattered in history with such ingenuity and durability. Also, unlike Lennon, McCartney understood that the Beatles' four members would never create so much wonder separately as they had collectively. Paul had Allan K

No, I understand that. It's apparent that their personalities clashed. And I don't blame Jeff for getting irritated with Jay. I just have yet to read anything from Jeff where he gives Jay hardly any credit for the REMARKABLE stretch of music from Being There to Mermaid to Summerteeth to YHF. I think Jay had a LOT to do with Wilco's success. I'm sure over time, Jeff will get less sour on Jay.

The writer, Mikal Gilmore, explains how the article was written on Rolling Stone's website. He started over a year ago and went through 65 books and took 1,400 pages of notes. Here's a blurb and link: To the degree that any of this is tragedy — given that all things must pass — then it's indeed a manifold tragedy. Harrison and Lennon were profound men who understood the necessity for hope and fellowship, and yet they were also men who could be profoundly petty and ungrateful. Both of them early on came to dislike the reality of the Beatles' massive audience — "Fucking bastards, sucking us

I consider myself fairly knowledgeable on the Beatles, but felt much of it was enlightening. I haven't read every book and article on the Beatles, so maybe this is just a great wrap-up piece for the group's last couple years. It points out the good and bad in Lennon, McCartney and Harrison. This article doesn't portray John in a super light, and Paul was clearly the financial brains of the group. I also didn't know how much Paul loved the band in those last days and wanted to stay together....even at the end...even letting Yoko be "part of the band", as he knew John wanted her there. I get t

I wish it was much longer, but not a bad piece. Jay Bennett is mentioned, and Tweedy still seems reluctant to give him much credit. Rather, Tweedy says Bennett acted like he was the co-leader of the band, when he clearly wasn't. And that bothered Tweedy. I kinda wish Jeff could just say that Bennett added a LOT to Wilco's sound and song-structures, but that the 2 had personalities that couldn't co-exist. Then Tweedy says how he likes the current lineup, because adults work together better than babies. It's all interesting, especially after the MAGNIFICENT Beatles article in the same issu

I'd not seen that ad. I thought it was funny in a dimented sort of way. It's very different from the movie theatre ad I saw last weekend. The ad I saw showed clips of Leno interviewing people outside (he points to a U.S. flag blowing in the breeze, and asks a lady how many stars are on it....the dim-witted lady says, "I can't tell. It's moving too fast"), his newspaper wedding names bit, and other clips from his show. Also, NBC's website has been putting different behind-the-scenes videos on their website. Some are funny, some not so much. And they include a few mini stand-up clips.

Kylie Minogue (#38 - "Can't Get You Out of My Head") I've never heard Robyn's music before, but really like "With Every Heartbeat" (#46). It kicks Clarkson's song in the ass.

JoBro and Hannah Montana and Taylor Swift are played on the same stations as Timberlake and Beyonce and Britney and Pink. Not sure I get your demographic point. Why Kylie and Britney and Beyonce, but not Fountain's of Wayne's "Stacy's Mom"? I'll take Pete Yorn's or Phoenix's pop songs over some of the crap on this list. It's just weird to me to try to rank catchy, sometimes-silly pop songs, with more obscure, arty, sometimes moody and depressing songs. Do you want to crank up "Hope There's Someone" by Antony and the Johnsons"? (ranked #28). Again....I like lists like these. They're fun

He may very well be a big, lime-light hogging ass. And his reputation probably WILL be tarnished forver. But as an NFL fan who wants to see exciting games, I'm SO excited he came back. If he plays well and the Vikings go to the playoffs, I'm watching. If he plays poorly and a below-.500 Vikings team goes into Green Bay, I want to watch that also. Either way, it's great drama for a football fan. The only thing that will suck is if he gets hurt.

I used them as an example. But Clarkson's "Since You've Been Gone", in my mind, is just another catchy pop song that teenagers like. Same with some of the other selections. Maybe Nickelback should be on the list? It's like bleedorange said earlier, Pitchfork decides which pop acts are cool and hip enough to make their list. Meanwhile, Pitchfork's list is filled MOSTLY with unique, interesting songs that probably wouldn't crack Billboard's Top 100,000 List, if it existed. How can Beck's "Lost Cause" or songs by the Mountain Goats exist with "Cry Me a River". (If I must pick one Jona

Jared Allen did a radio interview today, and he's not concerned AT ALL about how the Vikings players will accept Favre. He says they all understand it's kind of a unique situation. He says Favre is a regular dude....though he did admit Favre might be a little out of touch with some of the younger players, beings he's nearly 40 years old. If Favre plays like he did the first half of last year, NO Vikings player is gonna give a crap that he showed up to camp late and got preferential treatment. It's gonna be exciting to see how it unfolds. The Monday Night game in Minnesota in early October

I love the list, mainly because it's fun to read WHY they think a song is great. But my list would look WAY different. Their pop song choices seem scatter-brained to me. I'd prefer to see an Avril Lavigne song over Kylie, Kelly, Britney, Beyonce OR Alicia. If "Since You've Been Gone" makes the list, shouldn't a Jonas Brothers song? Kanye is included a bit, but I prefer much of his 808s & Heartbreak songs over those of his that Pitchfork selected. Is Jay Z REALLY all that? Eminem's "Lose Yourself" is the "Don't Stop Believing" of rap music and should be rated higher. But outside

"Their more recent output dabbles, with great success, in a number of different sounds, but none of their newer records make me want to jump in the car and ramble around the countryside like Summerteeth does." Well said. Nice essay.

I pretty much agree. To make a music comparison, for me Ponyo is kind of like a really great pop record....maybe like R.E.M.'s "Out of Time" or Fountains of Wayne's "Utopia Parkway". But I'm used to his movies being more like "Kid A" or "Sgt. Pepper's". I think it was Miyazaki's INTENT to make a more easily-understood movie that more kids could get enjoyment out of. But the magic for me was how, though aimed at a younger audience, I was still able to get wrapped up in the movie visually and emotionally. I might prefer his darker and quirkier films, but really enjoyed this one.

Another good reason to be indepedent... http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/For-the-Left_-war-without-Bush-is-not-war-at-all-8119694-53506047.html