jgln

Recipes 

Anyone see this on TV?

I found it very enjoyable even with all the ass kissing to the president and first lady but that is expected (my hero?). The tribute artists were great; I would love to have been there the sound must have been great too. I have always been a big Beatle fan and think Paul is an extremely naturally talented musician and songwriter even though post Beatles he got too bubble gum for me. I think John Lennon kept him in "some" check as a Beatle. I love his feel for the bass and he has an awesome voice in my opinion, such range.

He is the 3rd recipient, Paul Simon was first and Stevie Wonder was second.

With that said, do you think you can give such an award to Paul McCartney and not give one to John Lennon who was every bit as good a song writer? Who would you give the next prize to? Don't know the rules but I assume you do not have to be alive. I hope it maintains some class and fairness, unlike the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame which I think is a joke.

jgln

Recipes 

...excuse me, The White House.

Homercidal

Recipes 

Let me preface this with a disclaimer: I am not a big Beatles fan. Just so ya know.

McCartney and Lennon were both great songwriters, and capable singers and musicians. However, realize that The Beatles' earliest songs were quite often "Bubble Gum" of their time. The were usually very simple in structure, had a great enthusiasm, and were "catchy". The basic elements of hit pop songs.

I think that as they grew older, did more drugs, became wiser and more experienced, their music evolved and their music matured and grew with the times.

I think that John Lennon deserves the recognition every bit as much as McCartney, for the work they both did with the Beatles. But to say that either of them deserve it more than the other other Beatles is just silly. McCartney may deserve it more for his work after the Beatles, but we can only speculate what Lennon would have done had he not been murdered. And since we just don't know what might have been, I think it's entirely fair that McCartney would receive this recognition while Lennon is ignored "If we consider their entire body of work."

I would not choose any other person for the prize, because I think that taste in music is just way too personal to be universally appreciated. Technically there are plenty of gifted musicians and writers out there, but that does not mean that they get the sort of attention that popular artists get. Also there are plenty of popular songwriters who really don't deserve an award for their talents, because they are often not that talented.

I have an autobiography of McCartney that I haven't started yet, and it will be interesting to read about his personal life growing up. But I have a certain disdain for awards in art. I think the music should be enjoyed while listening to it. It's not a contest.

jgln

Recipes 

I like that you respect someone for what they have done even if you were not really a big fan, well of their early work anyway.

So did you see it? I suggest you do if you see it being aired.

triethylborane

Recipes 

Funny the LoC gave the award to McCartney during BO's admin. Sort of strange in the same way if the LoC gave the award to Nugent during Bush's admin. Anyways, always liked Lennon better, but I am not a Beatles fan.

Homercidal

Recipes 

No I have not seen it. I like documentaries and whatnot, but an awards show is not my kind of thing. I rely on my wife to tell me when there are hot ladies in slinky dresses to look at. That's about the only thing interesting to me about them.

jgln

Recipes 

I saw Paul McCartney's concert in St Petersburg last night and man it was good. His band is so good. He was just in town (or is now??) and I am sorry I did not get tickets. I never saw any of the Beatles live and I wish I had.

Another thing that struck me was what big Beatle fans they are over there. My fiancee is Ukrainian and said her older brother is a big Beatle fan. Just goes to show we are all the same inside less a few a-holes in the world.