im watching paul mccartney on bbc america and he sings a new song he just wrote and to be honest it was mediocre at best-
how could he write so many great hits (and a few not so great hits) but not be able to write a hit song in years? he has always said that he woke up with the melody for “yesterday” in his head- so why doesnt he wake up with another great hit-if that was the only song he ever wrote that was good, i could understand- but he wrote many good songs and then it stops-i always heard that he and john lennon didnt really write that many songs together, that they would help the other one with a composition but basically they wrote their own songs-so it wasnt losing his writing partner-
so why was he (and many other songwriters) so prolific when younger? the drugs? all the sex? or do we lose or creativity the older we get?
I thought it was all over-rated crap myself.
And he’s a thieving scouser which doesn’t help.
And the point of ‘English accents’ in the thread title? Answers on a post-card to…
sorry, i forgot the second part-they have a commercial on bbc america wher they have people off the streets singing songs from the 60’s and all the people lose their english accents when singing-they sound american? why?
I wonder if the British think that we lose our American accents when we sing and sound British…
Android
And he’s a thieving scouser which doesn’t help.
As opposed to Manny scum such as the bros Gallagher? 
BTW the appropriate return insult should be directed toward Leeds
Why are we able to do a lot more things when we are younger? Just because someone writes 25 hit records when they were in their twenties does not mean they are an endless source of original thought. You know your brain ages just like the rest of your body. The intellect in most cases is the last to go but in the end it goes too.
Creativity is 90% perspiration and 10% inspiration. When you are young you’ve got all that energy and sometimes the shear volume of it translates into something creative. But as time goes on sometimes people in their late 50’s like Paul are faced with the decision of writing a hit song or just simply going to bed earlier.
One of the few to be personally welcomed to this board by Ed Zotti.
Yours truly,
aha
Well you always heard wrong when you heard Lennon and McCartney didn’t write too many songs together. Did they go over every word and note together? No, they contributed ideas and feelings to each other. John added an edge to Paul’s cheesiness. Paul softened John’s edge, it was compromise.
Secondly, Paul is not a lyricist, he is a musician. John is the lyricist. All of Paul’s greatest songs, save about a dozen, have contributions from other people from Lennon to Elvis Costello (Mac Manus).
Thirdly, do you think this man is a demiGod or something? Hello! He is almost 60. He has been writing for about 45 years now. 45 years! Do you think you could turn out hit after hit after hit for 45 plus years?
Finally, what do you want from him? He is writing for himself now, not to make money. (He’s worth over $1 billion). He doesn’t CARE if the public doesn’t like what he does anymore. It’s not about record sales.
You may ask yourself, who does this girl think she is? To answer your question, I think I am probably one of the most knowledgable Beatle fans around. All modesty aside I’ve read every book, heard every interview and song, watched every movie. There’s not too much I don’t know. =)
“Everybody’s got something to hide except for me and my monkey”-The Beatles
No, it isn’t. If it sounds like it’s been worked on, it’s crap. The best stuff, musically and lyrically, tumbles out of a writer’s head in one big lump, which requires only a little tinkering around the edges to put into useable form.
Dee da dee da dee dee do do / Dee ba ditty doh / Deedle dooby doo ba dee um bee ooby / Be doodle oodle doodle dee doh http://members.xoom.com/labradorian/
As for creativity being 90% perspiration, I don’t think so. That may be the case for long works like novels, but in the case of songs the greatest ones often seem to come together out of thin air in no time at all.
Paul McCartney woke up one day with the ENTIRE song “Yesterday” formed in his brain (except for the lyrics). He actually believed that he was remembering a song he heard somewhere, because he could hear the whole thing in his head. He spent that day playing it for people and saying, “What song is this? Where did I hear this?”
John Prine wrote most of his greatest songs in his head while walking around as a mailman.
I’ve heard millions of stories like this - great songs that just seemed to appear out of the ether in a jam session, or written in 5 minutes between takes of another song in a recording studio.
What I think is lacking in people like McCartney today is the drive to write. Lennon’s main influence on McCartney was that of creative foil. They were in constant competition with each other. That kind of atmosphere often causes people to do their best. As far as I’m concerned, McCartney only wrote one or two great songs after leaving the Beatles, and that didn’t have anything to do with age, or with the actual musical contributions of Lennon. Near the end of the Beatles, the two didn’t contribute many musical ideas to each other. “Let it Be” was entirely Paul’s, and he wandered into the studio with a complete song before any of the other members heard any part of it.
The whole notion of where creative genius comes from is fascinating. George Harrison became one of the great songwriters during his stay with the beatles, despite having no talent at all for it when they started. So where did that come from? There was some combination of atmosphere, talent, attitude, competition, and high expectations that causes all of these guys to rise above themselves.
Moving this to MPSIMS.
What’s your definition of a hit? I’m sure a couple of the singles from his last album Flaming Pie charted. Just because you may not have heard them or liked them doesn’t mean they weren’t hits. I don’t listen to country music but I don’t doubt the fact that some of the songs and performers are immensely popular. At this point in his life McCartney isn’t writing songs to produce “hits,” he’s writing because he likes it. (He has even branched out in recent years to classical type works such as the “Loverpool Oratorio” and “Standing Stone.”) Conversely, people don’t usually buy current McCartney stuff because it’s popular, but because they like his style and sound.
“That basketball, was like a basketball to me!”
D’oh!!! That should of course be “LIVERpool Oratorio.” Sheesh! ::Slapping self on head::
“That basketball, was like a basketball to me!”
Shees your right lab and dhanson…I meant to type that the other way…90% inspiration 10% perspiration…ahhwell
One of the few to be personally welcomed to this board by Ed Zotti.
Yours truly,
aha
good question… its strange how they seem to lose accents when singing…
i dont know why
Check out my site:
Chief’s Domain
One major reason that McCartney’s new songs do not become major hits is that he’s not really innovative any more.
The Beatles were a truly innovative, perhaps even revolutionary, band. The Beatles (really the Lennon/McCartney collaboration) were arguably the most infulential band on popular music ever. All popular music today was heavily influenced, directly or indirectly, by the Beatles.
Now, thirty years later, with McCartney’s influence pervasive in today’s music, his new music is just not as unique as it was. Having moved music with his ideas, he is less able to break out of the pack to make a major hit. So, even if he were to wake up tomorrow with another “Yesterday” in his head, it wouldn’t become a major hit, but rather just another McCartney song similar to his earlier works.
I think a lot of great writing comes from pain. Angst, confusion, anger - they are all great fodder for poetry and songs. And, fortunately, McCartney’s been blessed with a happy life. At a very young age he achieved stature in his industry, a wife he loved, kids he adored, more wealth than we can imagine, and a doobie or two every night. Aside from Yoko, what complaints did he have?
I mean you can only write so many crazy love songs, then people start snickering at you.
I have a feeling that dealing with his wife’s death will get the creative juices flowing again. Poor chap looks like he’s aged ten years in the one since her death.
I can’t believe I’m the first person to post this: um…drugs? They were all on LSD and other mind altering drugs back then, I’d assume Sir Paul has laid off the wall-melter pills. I frankly am not a fan of the early “Help!” era Beatles, but Sergent Pepper/White Album was pure brilliance. That’s when they were using the most.
As a side note, Paul has always held that Bob Dylan taught them to roll joints. I would have LOVED to be there for that lesson.
pepperlandgirl –
I must respectfully disagree with your assessment that Paul was not a lyricist. I consider “For No One” as the Beatles’ best all-around effort (a purely subjective opinion, granted). “I’m Looking Through You.” “Drive My Car.” “Eleanor Rigby.” “Penny Lane.” “Lovely Rita.” “When I’m 64.” “The Fool on the Hill.” “Lady Madonna.” “Blackbird.” “Mother Nature’s Son.” “Hey Jude.” And many others. All influenced by the other Fabs, of course. But all fine poems.
And as for the second part of the OP – didn’t we already cover this in a recent thread in GQ?
“The dawn of a new era is felt and not measured.” Walter Lord
Some British artists sound American when they sing, but not the majority. I’d say money whores such as the Spice Girls would even assume a Russian accent if that would boost record sales.
Then again, Oasis hardly sounds like your average Brooklyn band to me. Neither does Madness, or the Beatles, for that matter.
Defect borg:
“Refutile is sistance. Your ass will be simulated”.
WallyM7 on Coldfire:
"Yeah, he knows a little about everything because they have a good prison library."