Janos Gereben wrote:

>Paul McCartney, perhaps the greatest composer of contemporary lieder...

I agree wholeheartedly.  I would go as far as to say that, in my opinion,
he is the greatest songwriter of all time.  Sure Schubert wrote wonderful
stuff as did Schumann and Brahms and Poulenc but my opinion remains that
Paul is the greatest.  I can't describe the feeling, really.  I have
listened to nearly every Schubert song and many of the Brahms and Schumann.
They are among my favorite of all works.  I simply love the McCartney songs
more.  I hope not to be criticized by list members who disagree but it
doesn't bother me.  They are not correct.  They are only more right in
their mind as I am in my mind.


>"Working Classical" (EMI Classics) is good, pleasant music, but it is
>quite unnecessary.  There is almost nothing in it that Richard Strauss,
>among others, didn't handle, and of course handled much better.

I think this is rather ridiculous...Unnecessary?????? Come on, since when
is a work called unnecessary and who has the ability to reason that point?
Sure, McCartney can't even read music and maybe Strauss was a better
orchestrator but to call McCartney's(or anyone else's) music unnecessary
seems odd in the extreme.

>Orchestral portions of "Capriccio" are first cousins to "A Leaf" and
>"Spiral," performed by the LSO, conducted by Lawrence Foster.  Sound,
>mood, orchestration -- it's all very Mondlichtlich.

I don't have a problem with the comparisons, it is a basic part of our
nature to compare the new to the known.  But as with most other comparisons
of this sort, there isn't a whole lot to be gained other than big time
disagreements over perceptions.

>String-quartet treatments of McCartney's first solo albums (played
>gorgeously by the Loma Mar Quartet), don't sound like McCartney at all:
>they appear to be a synthesis of Strauss, Brahms and something generically
>Czech.

I think it is funny you should say this because Paul may or may not have
EVER listened to these men.  I love the generically Czech line, I think
that is a throw-away comment unless you know generic Czech music when you
hear it.  Paul wrote a piece in Standing Stone which MANY people have
claimed to sound EXACTLY like Charles Ives.  At the time Paul wrote it he
had never ONCE heard Ives' music.  Given this fact, is it still a synthesis
and rehashing of Ives or is it genuine McCartney music?

>It's too bad.  I truly believe that when McCartney wrote McCartney, it
>*was* new, important, stirring and altogether terrific.  One hopes he will
>continue doing that, now that "Working Classical," "Liverpool Oratorio" and
>"Standing Stone" are out of his system.  Why not try "real" lieder or a
>musical or opera -- anything vocal?

As you probably can tell I am a HUGE McCartney fan.  (I basically own
every piece the man ever wrote) I love Paul McCartney's music; to me it
is genuine/unpretentious, beautiful, sometimes haunting and ALWAYS good
to listen to.  He has such a variety too, defying the pop culture myths
of writing the same piece over and over again.  He was a crucial factor in
a band that was essentially the first to really write their own music.  I
don't love EVERY piece by Paul McCartney but almost every damn one!  I just
get the impression from people that Paul McCartney should quit treading on
"sacred" classical grounds.  I think this is nonsense and the people who
say this are typically quite arrogant in feeling that they know what is
good for others to listen to as well.

--Wes Crone (Don't be saying nothing 'bout Paul, y'hear?)