Paul McCartney & Rick Rubin teaming on 6-part TV docuseries, "3, 2, 1"*

Whatever.......but I don't agree.

"...making music has always operated this way..." oh really? Sorry but that's obviously nonsense, compositions were, for a long time (and still are in some cases) disseminated by sheet music, so to say "always" is risible. What I think you're basically saying is that an arrangement...the very first arrangement of a songwriter's composition should be seen as having equal weight to the song itself and therefore implying that those responsible for the setting should perhaps be co-credited with the composition...........hmmm.

Many (most/all?) songwriters who tout their wares around agents do not present fully formed arrangements of their creations for consideration, if a song is accepted it's accepted because it's considered good enough to be used. That's the actual composition...the arrangement comes later and is incidental to the bones of the thing...decoration for the song.

 

There's quite a lot of things you're attributing to me that I did not actually write! And thanks, I am fully aware of how this process works.

We weren't talking about an example of a songwriter coming in with "the bones", were we? No - we were talking about artists *covering a finished, well-established track* and I asked how one can completely divorce the performance from the song after the fact. The song is of course the foundation (no one implied otherwise?) but saying "McCartney's bass just added to the Beatles' performance" is what's risible, frankly. All components came together to create a truly outstanding and impactful piece of work - that "work" is what anyone who has covered "Something" first heard and was influenced by, period.

(Your sheet music example is also a poor one by the way as many transcriptions are *someone else's interpretation* of what the original composer performed - even if said composer did put actual pencil to musical staff, what got disseminated to was oft-times a "lite" version of the work. )

This discussion has obviously made me think about the McCartney "III Imagined" project (which how on earth did that not get even a brief shout during the series?) - to hear how some artists were fairly faithful to the originals and then others went "way out there" and created a new beast. It's always fascinating to hear what is kept and what is taken away in new interpretations.

 

It's gotten to that point of a Macca thread:

 

Too many songs, not enough time. Imagined would require its own documentary, which I would love for the same reasons you mention. Not 6 episodes, but an hour for sure. Let's face it, Paul's career from start to present is so long and so jam packed and, despite what the naysayers would have us believe, stuffed with so many masterpieces, hidden gems, chart toppers and all round good tunes, that to do any of it justice realistically requires several docuseries. The 70s alone could fill a couple of seasons. Or imagine a docuseries dedicated entirely to his McCartney albums? You could fill a season with just his ballads! Someone needs to pitch more ideas to him...

 

Lol...you say, and I quote... '...saying "McCartney's bass just added to the Beatles' performance" is what's risible, frankly...' so then, tell me...what exactly does McCartney's bass do if it doesn't add to the performance of the George Harrison song? It's a part of the whole, the whole being the arrangement the band, together with George Martin came up with...just as you also say "...All components came together to create a truly outstanding and impactful piece of work..." that's true and McCartney's bass part may be very good indeed but he's only serving the song, in a beautiful way and granted, it's one of the main elements that make The Beatles' interpretation such a classic...one of the elements in their arrangement but the actual composition still belongs to a certain Mr G Harrison and when the song is performed, interpreted by other artists it's his melody and lyrics that form the backbone...always. Nobody approaches it with the intention of making a cover version of McCartney's bass performance, it's the song that they want to make a version of. I'm not saying that hearing The Beatles' version first doesn't provide the initial impetus for this desire...at least with the first few cover versions...after that the song has so many different versions that it becomes anyone's guess which version provided the inspiration for yet another. It's what happens with songs that become classics, they develop a life of their own, good songs lend themselves to different interpretations. The Beatles' version may be the first, the seed of many though not, as time goes by, the template for all others...to suggest otherwise is, to me, plain daft.

"(Your sheet music example is also a poor one by the way as many transcriptions are *someone else's interpretation* of what the original composer performed - even if said composer did put actual pencil to musical staff, what got disseminated to was oft-times a "lite" version of the work. )" Eh??? You may recall that I pointed out that the way songs used to be disseminated was by sheet music and that was in reply to this that you wrote, implying that in all cases a definitive 'original' version exists which then influences the cover versions...here is what you said, in full..."Even if it is not covered with the same arrangement/instrumentation, the original *still influences* what happens with the cover. The song is the song, but as the musician coming in behind an existing song, you make choices based upon that - whether you stay somewhat faithful to the original interpretation and just infuse it with "your own thing" to the extent you can or whether you take it off in a totally different direction because you intentionally don't want it to sound like the original ... making music has always operated this way." I've highlighted the part in bold because it's this part especially that isn't true, making music has not always operated in the manner you describe.

 

So tempting to engage but as I don't sense you actually play/perform music, I'll let it be. It's almost 2am over there - goodnight tonight, @zobalob! For what little it is worth, I hate the thought of arguing with a Scot as I love your country so - been many times (and had a nice dram of both Glenmorangie and Glendronach yesterday). We're clearly talking past each other... it happens.

 

That's funny, I was thinking exactly the same about you...Night night :>)

 

Knock knock
Who's there?
Interrupting Rick Rubin.
Interrupting Rick Rubin wh-
HA HA YES PAUL MCCARTNEY THAT IS A GREAT STORY YEAH YEAH TELL ME MORE

 

Time for me to say goodnight to this thread, now that the show has been over with a while things are just going to go off the rails here.
If there's a physical media release I'll pop back in.

 

Yes…sadly inevitably on most Macca threads…a good song though wish I had on cd…Ground deluxe?….banned on MTV I think and some accused Macca then of trying to change his “goody good” image though he was in his fifties by then, lol. I liked the Cajun style in the song.

 

Yep..surprisingly thread hasn’t been closed. We already had one troll here of Macca and another poster.

 

Absolutely no reason to close the thread - just a disagreement that's done with. Think we can all carry on....

 

Good…just different views but done with disputes….I wish Macca would do many more of these types of series…There’s so much unexplored of his solo stuff throughout the decades as others have noted on the thread.

 

It would have been nice if he had done something similar with each archive release. But I understand he tends to move forward rather than backwards. There's only so much time the guy can devote to his old catalog. I'm sure there's plenty of memories he doesn't want to be shared either.

 

Agree with your post….

 

I hope the thread stays as end of August the rest of the world will have access to the documentary and those haven't already accessed it by alternative means might like to post their views here.

 

Finally will have a chance to watch it this weekend.

I Did a long overdue update to all the apps including Hulu on my smart TV and did a trial subscription for HULU for 30 days.

 

He didn’t just happen to be there, he’d just sold an instrument to George Harrison. Infuriating that McCartney kept mispronouncing his name. Really?

 

If there is a second series..it should include Ringo. It would be great to get his perspective.

 

Most people, even people in the know, frequently pronounce it as Moooooog rather the the correct that rhymes with vogue I even slip occasionally.

But it’s something else to get outraged about I guess.

 

Well, he really should know. Funnily enough they show a clip of Bob Moog right after in which it is pronounced correctly.

 

Kind of like the whole Brian Epstein/Epsteen debate. I still don't know which is actually correct, but I always say it the way they said it in interviews, which was usually Stein

 

And what is really confusing is, it’s Leonard BernSTINE, but Elmer BernSTEEN. Even though they were brothers.

 

They were?

 

Hmm, I always thought so, but now I’m not positive.