Tim Dickinson wrote:

>The original point was that Paul co-wrote much of his best music, which
>is not the same as the borrowing that you're referring to, and that this
>collaboration had a lot to do with his success.  So comparing him to Bach,
>Beethoven, etc about this is apples and oranges.

This is, of course, an opinion.  I tend to think that some of Paul's
GREATEST pieces were written by Paul and PAUL alone.  Blackbird is an
example of a song Paul came up with quickly on his own.  I am also a HUGE
fan of Paul's post-Beatles stuff in which he essentially wrote EVERYTHING
himself.  Some teamwork was used with Linda but Paul solo for the most
part.  I don't think they are apples and oranges but maybe tangerines and
oranges.

>>Paul McCartney had a heavy interest in classical music from even the
>>early/mid days of the Beatles.  He was very much into music of the Baroque
>>(Bach in particular).  It was with this affection for early music that
>>he used a clavichord on "Cry for No One" and Baroque sounding trumpet on
>>"Penny Lane" Other Beatles songs are accompanied by harp ("She's Leaving
>>Home") and some with harpsichord ("Fixing a Hole").
>
>The unsung hero in a lot of such arrangements was their classically trained
>producer George Martin.  I wonder if any of the above examples originated
>with him; I remember reading a list of such things that were his doing.
>OTOH I've also read that it was Paul's idea to use the string quartet on
>"Eleanor Rigby".

Certainly George Martin took care of the task of arranging and
orchestrating the "classical" sounding parts but Paul was always the
catalyst.  Paul REQUESTED the French horn part in "For No One" and the
Piccolo trumpet in "Penny Lane" as well as the orchestral parts in Sgt.
Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band....Paul's brainchild.  Once realized from
his initial vision Martin took the reins and made it happen, so to speak.

>I have my doubts as to the degree to which any popular music, the
>Beatles or otherwise, will ultimately be adapted into what we think of as
>mainstream "classical" repertoire.  For one thing, so much of the appeal
>of pop music appeal is related to the recorded performance.  The difficulty
>in reproducing their heavily produced recording arrangements was a prime
>reason cited by the Beatles when they ceased touring.

I hear ya'.  to tell you the truth, I have NEVER been talking about
adapting Beatles tunes to "classical" format.  I'm talking about accepting
the Beatles' songs for what they were.  I'm also speaking the same for all
of Paul's post-Beatles music.  Maybe I am alone on this list as someone who
LOVES nearly the ENTIRE Wings output and post-Wings music.

>>(receiving EXACTLY the kind of replies I knew I would get from
>>a group of CM fans 900 strong)
>
>I was a lifelong Beatles fan before getting into classical music. I bought
>Standing Stone shortly after it came out, listened a bit, but haven't been
>motivated by what I heard to return to it since.

Me too Tim.  I have been listening to the Beatles since I was three years
old when I had my first record player.  I grew to love classical music
later on.  I heard the Liverpool Oratorio but thought it stunk.  Standing
Stone was wonderful in my opinion.  I never tried to hold it up to Mahler's
7th or Brahms' 4th technically, or otherwise.  I just listened to it for
what it was/is.  I think it is a lovely piece of music with some very
endearing themes.

>I just don't see the vast anti-Paul bias on this list which Wes seems to.
>I suspect that such a thing might be out there, but most of those people
>aren't interested enough to reply to this thread.  ;-)

Well, I never said there was a "VAST" anti-Paul bias but it is obvious to
me, from the replies I've read, that more people on this list than not are
anti-Paul.  I believe I read one reply complimenting Paul and about 5-10
which show displeasure.  Anyway, not that I mind, I just figured this would
be the case.  Hope I didn't offend anyone by assuming this.

Wes Crone