jakobnicholas

As far as who-wrote-what, this site is pretty good as a database of interview quotes: http://www.beatlesinterviews.org/index2.html

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 John Lennon, and he with me. It was very exciting."

As a music fan, that's how I feel. We were lucky enough to get to hear THE John Lennon and THE Paul McCartney write together. Toss in Harrison, Starr and Martin and holy shit...it's like music fans won the lottery. We're fortunate they were able to crank out as many songs as the did before splitting.

John's legacy of course has the advantage of John's being dead.

Yes. I agree.

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

I stopped reading after that line. I've never heard anyone say that until now.

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 guitar riffs.

Many of Paul's White Album songs are almost old-timey in sound. Yet it also has Helter Skeleter and Why Don't We Do It In The Road....2 songs that are totally in-your-face. Makes me wonder if hearing John's songs for the album made Paul put a little more rock into his songs. Likewise, maybe John's quiet and beautiful "Julia" was triggered from some of Paul's mellower songs.

"We Can Work if Out", to me, is maybe my favorite collaborative Beatles song...their contributions are obvious, and together, make a masterpiece.

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 Out". But I think the perception of the Beatles has always been that it was John's band and he wrote the better music. Yet, I'm not sure how great some of Lennon's fantastic songs would have been were it not for Paul's contributions.

It's known that Lennon didn't like some of Paul's later songs and refused to play on them. Yet, when I hear Dear Prudence, Everybody's Got Something to Hide Except for Me and My Monkey, Come Together or I Want You, I can hear Paul all over the song. It SOUNDS like Paul is doing all he can to help make the songs great. I struggle to find examples where John does the same with Paul's songs.

Bottom line for me is that I'm grateful that they stayed together as long as they did, despite all the issues they developed. It's STAGGERING to me that, though they seemingly were sick to death of each other, they were able to make a record as brilliant as Abbey Road. Harrison's songs are jaw-dropping. Lennon isn't as prolific, but his songs are great. Starr's lone song is silly but very strong. And the Paul-dominated medley is the perfect ending for the Beatles music catalogue.

I am not really sure what you are looking for here, jakobnicholas. Partnerships break up all the time, and when they do, there's a bad taste in the mouth of the two parties. Doesn't matter if it's a married couple or business partners or songwriters. It also doesn't matter how great the partnership was before it went sour. It's just the way it is. I would bet that Jeff has a lot of love for Jay, but he's also got a lot of anger and frustration. Everyone involved here is human.

 

(and fwiw, I think Jeff has handled all the questions about Jay with grace. He has been very respectful, and I think he has complimented Jay in every one of these pieces that I've read. The last words Jay said to Jeff were "I am suing you" (figuratively, of course))

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.

Jeff let Jay do whatever he wanted on Summerteeth, actually. He had free reign - ever take a look at the liner notes for Summerteeth? There are a zillion Bennett overdubs on all the tracks. The fracturing didn't occur between him and Jay on Summerteeth (I think they were pretty tight then), but between Jeff, Jay and the other guys. The Greg Kot book discusses this quite a bit, John and Ken kind of felt sidelined and marginalized by everything Jay was doing on the tracks. That's what Jeff is talking about I think when he says the band wasn't a cohesive unit.

 

I think the only real conflicts about how the songs should sound came at the very end of the YHF sessions, when Jeff had Jim O'Rourke mixing the album and Jay was frantically cutting his own mixes and overdubs. Quibbling with the final decision on that seems odd, especially if you love YHF like most people do, as most agree the final mix of that album sounds amazing.

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 (many times he was...which is probably why the music was so glorious. Those 2 made great music together.) when he was with me, and positioned himself kind of as "Who does that guy fucking he is?" (I think maybe Jeff gave Jay a lot of control of sound on Being There and Mermaid...enough that Jay expected that he'd get a lot of say for Summerteeth. Jay may have wrongly thought he was the Paul McCartney to Jeff's Lennon) when he was with the other guys. And not to speak ill of the guy (uh...you kind of just did), obviously, but that caused a lot of friction. Then, as we made Yankee Hotel Foxtrot, that situation got worse and worse (Jay got in the way of my vision of YHF), to the point where it alienated everybody, not just myself.

Rolling Stone: Is it easier now that you are the clear leader of the band?

Jeff: I don't think it ever wasn't clear (maybe it wasn't clear to Jay when Jeff let Jay contribute A LOT to Being There and especially Mermaid Ave. Jay must have rightly felt he earned his keep). It was maybe less clear to me, so that's easier. At the same time, Wlco has always aspired to be a collective experience (a band with a clear leader, and players that take orders when expected to do so). And there's more comraderie now than ever (the band doesn't disagree with Jeff much). It probably has more to do with being a band full of grown-ups. Bands full of babies don't last very long (another shot at Jay? Also, bands full of grown-ups don't usually make as exciting of music as bands with more egos). They just can't.

The reality is that, for you, Jeff will never say enough to appropriately honor Jay. At least if you stop pretending the words haven't been said and acknowledge that you simply don't believe them, we could save a few posts per thread.

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 felt to be able to be THE ONE who got to write with John Lennon. He's given kudos galore to Lennon.

Some day, maybe Jeff will do the same with Bennett.

That is true. But, of course, John would not go for Eastman either. As a friend of mine use to say - it took all four of them to make the band.

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 skip that fucking song EVERY time. I think Paul and John were like brothers, and they knew how to push each other's buttons.

“Jay was a really amazing musician and he really helped Wilco to grow as a band during the years he was with us. It was a tragic, sad end.”

Irish Times article

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.

Thanks for posting this. It's interesting, but I don't believe a single word of it.

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 Klein pegged. The article says Mick Jagger warned the Beatles to stay away from Klein, and Paul turned out to be wise to be the wise one.

I would take a look again at his actual quote, as he doesn't really mention leadership issues, more that Bennett would be somewhat two-faced, being Jeff's best buddy when he was in the room and trashing him behind his back when he wasn't there.

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 to death," John Lennon told Rolling Stone in 1970 — and both men became uncharacteristically obsessed with financial eminence near the group's end.

But what I found most troubling, most tragic, in all of this was two things: Both Lennon and Harrison (Lennon, clearly, in particular) did their best to sabotage the Beatles from mid-1968 onward, and when it all came irrevocably apart, I believe that both men regretted what they had wrought. I don't think that John Lennon and George Harrison (but Lennon, again, in particular) truly meant the Beatles to end, even though they might not have known it in the moment. I think they meant to shift the balance of power, I think they meant for the Beatles to become, in a sense, a more casual form of collaboration, and I think they clearly intended to rein in Paul McCartney. But they overplayed their hand and — there's no way around it — they treated McCartney shamefully during 1969, and unforgivably in the early months of 1970.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/29723450/why_the_beatles_broke_upbr_the_story_behind_our_cover/1

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 the sense Paul truly loved being writing partners with John in what he thought was the biggest and best band in the world.

Another interesting detail was John's admission that he just couldn't keep up with Paul's writing pace on the latter records. Some of that was John's psychological state....most of it drug-induced, I imagine.

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 issue. Lennon and McCartney clearly had major issues with each other. It's maybe a little apples and oranges to compare Lennon/McCartney to Tweedy/Bennett, but it's interesting to read how Lennon and McCartney (AND Harrison) were able to put up with various shit to allow themselves to keep creating great music. Especially McCartney, who LOVED to be able to write songs alongside Lennon.

I'm not claiming that Tweedy could have done a better job of keeping Bennett in Wilco, but as a fan of their music together, I wish he would have. The Beatles were able to put out the White Album in the midst of basically hating each other. Each member had a set of songs and essentially used the other members as studio musicians. And they later were able to put out Abby Road and Let it Be.....pretty decent records, most would agree.

As a fan, it would be VERY intersting to hear what a late 90's Wilco White Album might sound like. Imagine Tweedy, Bennett, Stirrat and Bach each putting 3-6 songs on a big double disc.

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.

Conan's show has been OK, but I'm actually looking forward to seeing Leno on the tube again. I miss his monologue takes on current events.

Who is Kylie?

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.

Billboard's lists are based on sales, and Pitchfork's are not.

 

 

 

Because it's a damned fine song, and it's the one that took him out of JoBro demographics and made the older crowd pay attention to him. Career-altering and wildly successful, and it's a song that all of us heard WAY too much - and others still not enough.

 

The distinction to me, when reading this list, is that Pfork readers hear "Since U Been Gone" and want to turn it up; they hear "Cry Me a River" and turn it up; they hear "Toxic" and turn it up; people hear Nickelback and change the station. Most Pitchfork target-market readers have likely downloaded the first three tracks, and definitely DEFINITELY have not downloaded Nickelback.

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 and sometimes lead to me to music I'd otherwise not hear.

Yes, Favre has every right to sign with any team who'll take him, and to continue his football career. I won't argue that.

 

But the guy's an ass. Make a fucking decision and stick with it, big guy.

 

One of two things will happen: his play will be mediocre and fans will start calling for him to be benched, or he'll get hurt early in the season and miss most or all of the rest of the schedule while collecting his paycheck. Either way, I don't see a Pro Bowl season from Mr. Favre.

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.

Which one? I don't think I know any Jonas Bros songs, actually.

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 Jonas Brothers, I'll say "A Little Bit Longer")

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 is gonna be a HUGE event. Can't wait to see it. And then a return to Green Bay in November.....wow!

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 the popular Billboard Top 40 songs, there's some solid choices....Yo La Tengo's "Way To Fall", Sigur Ros' "Svefn-g-englar" and the Flaming Lips "Do You Realize" as examples.

"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.

This was good, but I think, for me, a little something was lost from his previous works. I still liked it quite a bit, but I felt it lacked the usual sense of magic. Still beautiful and well-worth seeing. And I noticed only one awkward line of dialogue, so that's a win as far as I'm concerned. I was mortified when I saw the voice-acting lineup.

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