But it's clear: McCartney and the Beatles, especially with their producer George Martin done some good to classical music. They adopted and integrated elements of classical music in their own style and in British Rock music per se. Therefore they gave new and fresh impulses to modern classical music too. In a way they revived it.
Interesting... I think a mix of both is good. Being knowledgable is necessary in a craft but being ignorant allows you to be yourself without the influence or pressure of others
Being ignorant merely allows you to be influenced by other things without your realizing it. Learning more about what’s out there and how music can be created in different ways can actually stimulate more creativity.
I am a hymn composer for congregational singing and have a good ear for music and I do incorporate classical music into my compositions, especially Bach.
The 'Somewhere' melody from 'West Side Story' was nicked by Bernstein from a passage in the slow movement of Beethoven's Emperor Concerto. (Bernstein freely acknowlegded this.) He also helped himself to a theme from Tchaikovsky's 'Swan Lake'. He cobbled them together and - viola - 'Somewhere'. Bernstein was nothing if not eclectic.
Back when Bernstein wrote West Side Story in the late 50s, composers were free to borrow sections from other big pieces and rework it for their own stylings of said work. This is where you have variations of themes by Paganini, Rachmaninov, etc., or quoting/reworking lines from other works into your own(like Lin Manuel Miranda does is his work on In The Heights, Hamilton, etc.), or in Bernstein’s case borrowing certain melody passages to put and emphasis on the meaning of the music and the words. All of this is basically practice of Public Domain, which meant any piece of work that has been out for more than 56 years is free to be copied, shared, and reworked by other creators through copyright. Then it all changed in 1998 when Disney lobbied the courts to extend the copyright laws for decades, just so they can keep Mickey Mouse from entering the public domain himself. m.ruclips.net/video/SiEXgpp37No/видео.html So yeah, if Leonard Bernstein was alive and to have written West Side Story now, he would get sued by both estates of composers he openly borrowed the music from.
We're lucky this advanced being whom we call Paul McCartney has so humbly shared his many and varied gifts with us. What a blessing to this world for those who are willing to listen.
Maybe what he wanted to actually say was that it is a great resource for a musician to -forget- from time to time and just let it be. He certainly knows what "chords" he needs to use in order to sound the way he does, but as soon as you do this without thinking you will realize that your possibilities are infinite. The only way to achieve this is repetition, the beatles played so much music from others before writing their own that when they found each other they just knew what they had to do.
Paul is a musical genius, and a right diplomatic fellow at that. As for classical... I have at times, been able to hear entire original orchestral pieces in my head. Could I write them down or play them? No. Unlike Guitar George, I only know a few chords.
you only couldn't write them down because you don't have the training and knowledge. you could easily attain that, if you wanted. and if you're hearing them in your head that clearly, you could at the very least translate the separate parts to humming, and then find the notes from there (which is what paul does, i'm pretty sure)
The person from whom Leonard Bernstein "nicked" "Somewhere" just happens to have been Leonard Bernstein himself. The music to this song was one of Bernstein's "trunk tunes" (as they say in the business). He'd been trying to fit it into various projects before it finally, with Stephen Sondheim's lyric, found a home in "West Side Story". (Sondheim explains this in his book "Finishing the Hat".)
killerfly I would think if you gave sheet music to someone they had never seen before, they would not be able to read and play at the same time and make it flow...there would be slight delay in reading and playing...and some notes are split seconds long...so by the time you have read one note the next one has been missed....and also you cannot turn the pages while you are playing your instrument!..Basically there has to be rehearsal over and over and the sheet music is just a guide of something you already know by heart...
Paul McCartney does, indeed, have a great sense of Music. His Classical compositions are incredible. Especially for a modern Pop musician. His style is almost like that of Claude debussy's. My Favourite Recording is "Working Classical".
@@hamburglar8794 indeed, the end result would not have been his but rather someone's interpretation complete with a better understanding for potential of the material
Well, western harmony was in its infancy, so there is some truth to what McCartney said, but obviously it can't be used against Monteverdi; it would be ridiculous to expect a Renaissance composer to use extended chords, for instance.
Popular artist, in the contemporary sense of the word, didn't exist before recording technology. Some songs from the old ages have been recorded later and the composer is usually labelled as "trad".
Yep. I'm sure in the halls of the music gods 'Michelle' is up there with Debussy's 'Claire de Lune'. "Michelle, ma belle Sont des mots qui vont très bien ensemble . Très bien ensemble" Very good.
Non sto dicendo che Yesterday è al pari dei capolavori della musica classica ma, considerando il rock come la musica prima del 900 a livello di massa, noi abbiamo questa canzone prima di tutti; la nostra sinfonia n9.
I do not agree. In fact, I think it's safe to say that you are plain wrong. Listen to Mozart. He used pretty complex structures and chords, yet made it seem very accessible (some of it, that is). The same can be said of Antonio Carlos Jobin, whos music is complex, yet has been labelled 'elevator music'.
You have no idea what your talking about popularity in certain music generes may rise or fall but music never dies nowadays. Mozart just like you said hasn't been around for 200 years and his music is still being played. Especially now with Internet and Cd's available for music listening Beatles will NEVER die! Plus they and Paul cant die they're "bigger than Jesus".
As to the argument that popular musicians like the Beatles will last as long as Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, etc. Let me ask one question. Can anybody name popular musical artists from the time of Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, etc.? And if you have to look to Google, the answer to the question is "no."
A lot of their songs seemed to have been heavily influenced by Pachelbel at least although that might have been Lennon's or someone else's idea or maybe they absorbed it from other sources without being aware of where it came from.
Monteverdi knew chords all right. Paul is apparently unaware that it was a serious _political_ issue at the time to use this compositional technique or other. Monteverdi was in a _major_ row once over certain type of harmonic progression. It's hard to understand today.
This is a classic case of the old saying "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" and although he has sold gazillions of records, its clear that he does not know a lot about classical music Monteverdi didn't know a lot of cords is as stupid as the Emperor telling Mozart that his music had too many notes
I have great respect for the man and the musician. However, I must respectfully disagree with his thoughts about common practice period music. I must also disagree that ignorance is bliss; ignorance is a road block to deeper understanding.
@@francodimodugno1858 cierto, otras melodías She’s Leaving Home o posteriormente Somedays se nota la influencia barroca, en su más reciente álbum uso clavecin, instrumento del barroco.
@@hungrymikepencetd5686 I doubt Monteverdi knew polychords or extended chords. Or if he had played them by accident he would not use them or write them.
@@superblondeDotOrg Facts are Monteverdis music is the best. The purest, most flexible and emotional there is. You cant compare him with cretins like Mozart
Popular artists, popular arts, meant the same thing in previous ages that it does today: artist and arts that have mass, popular appeal. Bach, Mozart, Beethoven etc. have always had limited appeal, perhaps to the top 1 or 2 percent of the population, then and today.
I don't believe classical music only appealed to 1 or 2 percent. In fact I know it's more than that. I've never researched it, but it's been common knowledge that classical was the popular music of it's time. Of course, that doesn't mean it's true. However, until recently, and I mean recently it's a face that historically, it's been a much larger percentage that would like it. Classical music appealed to most people until a few years ago if you look at concert attendance before, say, 1950.
+Townsend Music School Recordings of classical music account for less than 3% of all recordings sold. I don't make things up. Sorry if you don't like the facts.
I know the facts. Sorry if you don't like them. Since when did they say "Popular artists". You can't call most of todays performers "artists" in the same vein as classical artists. Artist did most certainly NOT mean what it does today. Are you kidding? Evidently you have no knowledge of music. I mean the complexities than you couldn't hope to understand. It's just sick that you could even mention great composers in the same breath with Justin Beiber. P diddy dog or whatever and all the absolute junk they put out. They don't know anything about music. McCartney is another story.
+Townsend Music School if you know the facts then why did you totally ignore the response I made about statistics showing that less than 3% of record sales are classical? also you seem to be confused about a further point. I never compared Bieber excetera to Beethoven. my whole point is the difference between classical music through the ages and popular music through the ages
While it's clear he does not know too much about music theory, that's not important. Theory is just a guideline or suggestion that can be followed, but not a single good composer has relied on it to produce results. The great composers could "hear" the music in their minds, without any formulaic structure or rules of harmony and counterpoint, etc.
Not true. What about Mozart and Beethoven? What about Bach? Literally all three composers I have named know absurd amounts of theory. All of the Russian Composers Theory training is so insane that it is borderline child abuse. Ravel went through the same. I am trying to think of a single composer who didn't know theory but I literally cannot name one. Debussy said that music just came to him but keep in mind that he knew what he was doing as well.
Those composers not only knew a lot of theory, but studied widely the rules of Harmony and Counterpoint with experts at the time to then work on their own craft.
What you have to remember is before the beatles came along classical music was shit avant garde crap. The Beatles brought interesting chord changes and techniques into tonal pop music, inspiring the next generation of classical composers into tonal works.
Composers from the 18th - 21st Centuries have had more chords at their disposal than did Monteverdi who composed in the late 16th - early 17th Centuries. It's no secret that the Beatles,' and all rock utilize a limited harmonic, melodic, and rhymic range. That's the only way to appeal to masses, ie a lowest common denominator.
Below there is a heated-up debate but it is still very good and helpful. Particularly here in the brainwashed United States, where all of us here debating will be immediately called "opinionated," which is as nice as a century ago calling someone homosexual.
well the painful part is where he sees this work as original. It's abjectly 'classical' in the most banal terms. He seems to be under the impression that he hasn't absorbed the western canon like everyone else simply by the fact that it has informed every aspect of music in the west...
this guy is PAUL MCCARTNEY... TALKING ABOUT HOW HES PAID TO WRITE MUSIC... YEAH YOU SPEARHEADED AN ENTIRE CULTURE AND ARE PART OF WHAT IS CONSIDERED THE GREATEST BAND IN HISTORY.
He clearly doesn't know much about classical music and that's fine - nothing wrong with that. But, to speak disinformation? That's just appalling Well, stick to pop, Paulie.
Left Leg He is not by classical standards. But, yes everyone is entitled to an opinion, regardless. However his opinion is unfortunately uninformed and wrong, and with his popularity and influence, he's spreading disinformation. He might aswell have sat there and lied.
Beatles might have struck the gold mine on easy-listening market, but that doesn't magically give McCartney the skill to become an "outstanding composer" overnight. There's people who dedicate their life for composing, McCartney is just talking miles over his head here.
WolfPsx Maccartney is one of the greatest of all time and knows a thing or two about composing. You on the other hand don't. And those people you are talking about bow down to maccartney,Nobody has written a melody greater than yesterday,ever.
1bol1 most musical critics including howard goodall would dissagree. Mccartney was literally trained by classical composer george martin. Most of paul's genius came from intuition and experimentation. Without him and John pop as we know it wouldnt exist and classical music would be anti tonal bullshit like schoenberg and avant garde
Look at all those butthurt middle class classical music students who just got enrolled in music college with their daddy's investment bank money because mom told them they are "musical geniuses" take offense at what the most successful musician of all time said about Montiverdi. It's beautiful to watch those kids who get salty because they'll never be as talented as Paul use classical music as some kind of ego booster. Wow, you listen to classical music! You're so special! If only Paul had done the same, he could have been as great as Todd who just played some wonderful Schubert in his recital. Paul won't last 50 years (except he just did haha) ;)
TheGreatest Dancer, with all due respect to you, you sound to me like those who voted for Donald Trump here in the United States. Let's acknowledge it, McCartney was never a thinking person; without Lennon's acute intellectual vision, McCartney would have gone nowhere as a songwriter.
I have no idea what Trump has to do with this. Having said that, I'm a classical liberal/libertarian. That's as far removed from Trump nationalism/populism as humanly possible. Nice try poisoning the well, though. You clearly don't know much about The Beatles. If you did, you would have known that Paul was actually the experimental one. He was the one frequenting intellectual circles such as Indica Gallery while John was sleeping and watching TV. It was only after John met Yoko that he became interested in anything other than 50's rock n' roll and Bob Dylan. Even George Harrison was more experimental, introducing Indian music to rock audiences. If you knew anything about The Beatles you would realize that Paul was the one who was into classical music and the one that experimented with tape loops. Without him there wouldn't have been Tomorrow Never Knows, which John worte. Yellow Submarine was their first step into psychedelic. Who wrote that? Oh yes, it was Paul! String quartet in a Beatles song? Oh right, Yesterday. The longest single at the time? Hey Jude. A song about loneliness in the Dorian mode? Sounds like Eleanor Rigby. Sgt. Pepper Lonely Hearts Club Band? Paul's idea entirely. Who wrote songs in every style conceivable and mixed it with pop music? Yes, Sir Macca. I know it's hard for some people who have been fed with this image that Paul was just "the cute one" to actually do some research. You don't know shit, with all due respect. ;) Please don't take it personally. After all, your Sibelius recital was lovely!
I guess he said the Trump thing because you get so offensive and insult people, If they disagree with what Paul said, so what? Paul may be the most succesful but you cant say he is the most talented, If you like him thats fine and thats your opinion, but if someone likes classical music then dont insult them about it. BTW Have you ever played music in front of people before?? then stop mocking recitals, you look stupid
You seem to be having a hard time here. Let me help you. I'm not criticizing fans of classical music. I'm criticizing middle-class idiots who who were told by their parents they are musical geniuses and act like snobs because Paul McCartney said something inaccurate about Montiverdi. Listening to classical music is NOT a big deal and doesn't make you smarter or more special. These entitled idiots need to be put in their place every once in a while. :) Again, I'm not mocking recitals. I'm mocking people who criticize Paul McCartney but, for all their geniuses, all they could accomplish in life was play some wonderful Schubert or something. Also, I did in fact play music live. I sure as hell didn brag about how sooo muuuch better I am than fucking peasant Paul McCartney who only played pop. Anyway, most of these people don't need to learn anything about classical music. Classical literature would be way more benefitial to them.
Развлечения
It's great to hear Paul being interested in classical music too, as I'm a classical flutist myself. Two things I love!
But it's clear: McCartney and the Beatles, especially with their producer George Martin done some good to classical music. They adopted and integrated elements of classical music in their own style and in British Rock music per se. Therefore they gave new and fresh impulses to modern classical music too. In a way they revived it.
I think Paul has a particular interest in baroque music. :P
Interesting... I think a mix of both is good. Being knowledgable is necessary in a craft but being ignorant allows you to be yourself without the influence or pressure of others
Being ignorant allows you to produce trash, while being confidently unaware of what you're doing.
Being ignorant merely allows you to be influenced by other things without your realizing it. Learning more about what’s out there and how music can be created in different ways can actually stimulate more creativity.
I am a hymn composer for congregational singing and have a good ear for music and I do incorporate classical music into my compositions, especially Bach.
The 'Somewhere' melody from 'West Side Story' was nicked by Bernstein from a passage in the slow movement of Beethoven's Emperor Concerto. (Bernstein freely acknowlegded this.) He also helped himself to a theme from Tchaikovsky's 'Swan Lake'. He cobbled them together and - viola - 'Somewhere'. Bernstein was nothing if not eclectic.
Back when Bernstein wrote West Side Story in the late 50s, composers were free to borrow sections from other big pieces and rework it for their own stylings of said work.
This is where you have variations of themes by Paganini, Rachmaninov, etc., or quoting/reworking lines from other works into your own(like Lin Manuel Miranda does is his work on In The Heights, Hamilton, etc.), or in Bernstein’s case borrowing certain melody passages to put and emphasis on the meaning of the music and the words.
All of this is basically practice of Public Domain, which meant any piece of work that has been out for more than 56 years is free to be copied, shared, and reworked by other creators through copyright.
Then it all changed in 1998 when Disney lobbied the courts to extend the copyright laws for decades, just so they can keep Mickey Mouse from entering the public domain himself.
m.ruclips.net/video/SiEXgpp37No/видео.html
So yeah, if Leonard Bernstein was alive and to have written West Side Story now, he would get sued by both estates of composers he openly borrowed the music from.
We're lucky this advanced being whom we call Paul McCartney has so humbly shared his many and varied gifts with us. What a blessing to this world for those who are willing to listen.
Maybe what he wanted to actually say was that it is a great resource for a musician to -forget- from time to time and just let it be. He certainly knows what "chords" he needs to use in order to sound the way he does, but as soon as you do this without thinking you will realize that your possibilities are infinite. The only way to achieve this is repetition, the beatles played so much music from others before writing their own that when they found each other they just knew what they had to do.
PS: Sorry for bad english.
@@christiant.8834 Isn't that what everybody does?
Paul is a musical genius, and a right diplomatic fellow at that. As for classical... I have at times, been able to hear entire original orchestral pieces in my head. Could I write them down or play them? No. Unlike Guitar George, I only know a few chords.
you only couldn't write them down because you don't have the training and knowledge. you could easily attain that, if you wanted. and if you're hearing them in your head that clearly, you could at the very least translate the separate parts to humming, and then find the notes from there (which is what paul does, i'm pretty sure)
The person from whom Leonard Bernstein "nicked" "Somewhere" just happens to have been Leonard Bernstein himself. The music to this song was one of Bernstein's "trunk tunes" (as they say in the business). He'd been trying to fit it into various projects before it finally, with Stephen Sondheim's lyric, found a home in "West Side Story". (Sondheim explains this in his book "Finishing the Hat".)
killerfly
I would think if you gave sheet music to someone they had never seen before, they would not be able to read and play at the same time and make it flow...there would be slight delay in reading and playing...and some notes are split seconds long...so by the time you have read one note the next one has been missed....and also you cannot turn the pages while you are playing your instrument!..Basically there has to be rehearsal over and over and the sheet music is just a guide of something you already know by heart...
Paul McCartney does, indeed, have a great sense of Music. His Classical compositions are incredible. Especially for a modern Pop musician. His style is almost like that of Claude debussy's. My Favourite Recording is "Working Classical".
He got help for his classical pieces.
@@hamburglar8794 Yes. That's true. Nevertheless, they are McCartney compositions. His melody arrangements.
@@hamburglar8794 indeed, the end result would not have been his but rather someone's interpretation complete with a better understanding for potential of the material
@@adroharv9213 The musicians that worked with Paul said that they were very much his pieces. They talked about how he told them exactly what he wanted
Paul is the greatest rock musician who influenced progressive rock
I hear humility from this famous dude; I like his take on originality; ever mindful of 'creative rights' like a good businessman:)
I love the Beatles to death. Paul McCartney is a legend. Period. But saying "Monteverdi didn't know a lot of chords"... LOL.
True lol 😂 Baroque Music has so much to do with forms, scales, cadenzas, theory, chords. Well, but as Paul said: He doesn't know mich classical music.
Well, western harmony was in its infancy, so there is some truth to what McCartney said, but obviously it can't be used against Monteverdi; it would be ridiculous to expect a Renaissance composer to use extended chords, for instance.
@@bazingacurta2567 You should listen to some of the crazy chords in the 5-part harmony of the madrigals :D
Popular artist, in the contemporary sense of the word, didn't exist before recording technology. Some songs from the old ages have been recorded later and the composer is usually labelled as "trad".
The melody of Berstein's that he quotes is interestingly from Beethoven's 5th piano concerto.
Yep. I'm sure in the halls of the music gods 'Michelle' is up there with Debussy's 'Claire de Lune'. "Michelle, ma belle
Sont des mots qui vont très bien ensemble
. Très bien ensemble" Very good.
Non sto dicendo che Yesterday è al pari dei capolavori della musica classica ma, considerando il rock come la musica prima del 900 a livello di massa, noi abbiamo questa canzone prima di tutti; la nostra sinfonia n9.
I watch this and I can't stop thinking about him in his "interview" with Weird Al Jankovic saying "I don't like jazz, I don't like classical".
The Beatles is the folk music of the future. Actually, it's folk music already today
I do not agree. In fact, I think it's safe to say that you are plain wrong.
Listen to Mozart. He used pretty complex structures and chords, yet made it seem very accessible (some of it, that is).
The same can be said of Antonio Carlos Jobin, whos music is complex, yet has been labelled 'elevator music'.
You have no idea what your talking about popularity in certain music generes may rise or fall but music never dies nowadays. Mozart just like you said hasn't been around for 200 years and his music is still being played. Especially now with Internet and Cd's available for music listening Beatles will NEVER die! Plus they and Paul cant die they're "bigger than Jesus".
I guess he forgot about his 1968 comment when he said he was very frightened of Classical Music.
As to the argument that popular musicians like the Beatles will last as long as Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, etc. Let me ask one question. Can anybody name popular musical artists from the time of Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, etc.? And if you have to look to Google, the answer to the question is "no."
We
Bach and Beethoven are almost 85 years apart. So, yes Beatles will be the artist who will define this century.
Haydn, Vivaldi, perhaps someone even remembered Pachelbel?
A lot of their songs seemed to have been heavily influenced by Pachelbel at least although that might have been Lennon's or someone else's idea or maybe they absorbed it from other sources without being aware of where it came from.
Claudio Monteverdi and a jug band!
Monteverdi knew chords all right. Paul is apparently unaware that it was a serious _political_ issue at the time to use this compositional technique or other. Monteverdi was in a _major_ row once over certain type of harmonic progression. It's hard to understand today.
This is a classic case of the old saying "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" and although he has sold gazillions of records, its clear that he does not know a lot about classical music Monteverdi didn't know a lot of cords is as stupid as the Emperor telling Mozart that his music had too many notes
Well said! Classical musicians shouldn't bow to amateurs, no matter how popular.
*Your. Feel dumb yet?
Haha you are calling mccartney stupid. Right.
You can't spell
Why's he flipping the audience off while talking?
Popular musicians from the time of Beethoven, Mozart, and Bach would have been Beethoven, Mozart, and Bach.
beatles is 🚯
pleasant things beatles is the best
Bach wasn't even popular duing his time. Felix Mendelssohn popularized his music in the mid 19th century.
God you’re thick
Oh he knows
I have great respect for the man and the musician. However, I must respectfully disagree with his thoughts about common practice period music. I must also disagree that ignorance is bliss; ignorance is a road block to deeper understanding.
McCartney es el musico que mejor represento a Bach, tanto en los beatles como despues en su etapa solista. Principalmente el barroco.
Que cosa estupida que dices.
Tan solo el solo de trompeta de Penny Lane está inspirado de Bach
@@eberatzinaldanaaguilera4520 si y te diría toda la estrofa es una copia directa de algun barroco
@@francodimodugno1858 cierto, otras melodías She’s Leaving Home o posteriormente Somedays se nota la influencia barroca, en su más reciente álbum uso clavecin, instrumento del barroco.
Monteverdi didn't know many chords? well I never...
Haha; same thought. Monteverdi knew more chords than all of these modern guys combined!
@@hungrymikepencetd5686 I doubt Monteverdi knew polychords or extended chords. Or if he had played them by accident he would not use them or write them.
@@superblondeDotOrg Facts are Monteverdis music is the best. The purest, most flexible and emotional there is. You cant compare him with cretins like Mozart
@@hungrymikepencetd5686 gtfo troll bot
I hate to say it but this is pure waffle
Yup, 'monteverdi didnt know many chords'... Complete waffle
Popular artists, popular arts, meant the same thing in previous ages that it does today: artist and arts that have mass, popular appeal. Bach, Mozart, Beethoven etc. have always had limited appeal, perhaps to the top 1 or 2 percent of the population, then and today.
I don't think that's true at all. Where did you get that. If it is true, then it just shows that only 1 or 2 percent of the population has any brains.
I don't believe classical music only appealed to 1 or 2 percent. In fact I know it's more than that. I've never researched it, but it's been common knowledge that classical was the popular music of it's time. Of course, that doesn't mean it's true. However, until recently, and I mean recently it's a face that historically, it's been a much larger percentage that would like it. Classical music appealed to most people until a few years ago if you look at concert attendance before, say, 1950.
+Townsend Music School Recordings of classical music account for less than 3% of all recordings sold. I don't make things up. Sorry if you don't like the facts.
I know the facts. Sorry if you don't like them. Since when did they say "Popular artists". You can't call most of todays performers "artists" in the same vein as classical artists. Artist did most certainly NOT mean what it does today. Are you kidding? Evidently you have no knowledge of music. I mean the complexities than you couldn't hope to understand. It's just sick that you could even mention great composers in the same breath with Justin Beiber. P diddy dog or whatever and all the absolute junk they put out. They don't know anything about music. McCartney is another story.
+Townsend Music School if you know the facts then why did you totally ignore the response I made about statistics showing that less than 3% of record sales are classical? also you seem to be confused about a further point. I never compared Bieber excetera to Beethoven. my whole point is the difference between classical music through the ages and popular music through the ages
While it's clear he does not know too much about music theory, that's not important. Theory is just a guideline or suggestion that can be followed, but not a single good composer has relied on it to produce results. The great composers could "hear" the music in their minds, without any formulaic structure or rules of harmony and counterpoint, etc.
Not true. What about Mozart and Beethoven? What about Bach? Literally all three composers I have named know absurd amounts of theory. All of the Russian Composers Theory training is so insane that it is borderline child abuse. Ravel went through the same. I am trying to think of a single composer who didn't know theory but I literally cannot name one. Debussy said that music just came to him but keep in mind that he knew what he was doing as well.
Those composers not only knew a lot of theory, but studied widely the rules of Harmony and Counterpoint with experts at the time to then work on their own craft.
What you have to remember is before the beatles came along classical music was shit avant garde crap. The Beatles brought interesting chord changes and techniques into tonal pop music, inspiring the next generation of classical composers into tonal works.
absolute nonsense
Composers from the 18th - 21st Centuries have had more chords at their disposal than did Monteverdi who composed in the late 16th - early 17th Centuries. It's no secret that the Beatles,' and all rock utilize a limited harmonic, melodic, and rhymic range. That's the only way to appeal to masses, ie a lowest common denominator.
YES PAUL, YOU HAVE BEEN LUCKY, YOUR MUSIC TALENT COMES FRO GOD. REMEMBER TO THANK HIM!!
Below there is a heated-up debate but it is still very good and helpful. Particularly here in the brainwashed United States, where all of us here debating will be immediately called "opinionated," which is as nice as a century ago calling someone homosexual.
well the painful part is where he sees this work as original. It's abjectly 'classical' in the most banal terms. He seems to be under the impression that he hasn't absorbed the western canon like everyone else simply by the fact that it has informed every aspect of music in the west...
this guy is PAUL MCCARTNEY... TALKING ABOUT HOW HES PAID TO WRITE MUSIC... YEAH YOU SPEARHEADED AN ENTIRE CULTURE AND ARE PART OF WHAT IS CONSIDERED THE GREATEST BAND IN HISTORY.
Paul, don't say "When I write". You remember you do not read or write music. You recorded music.
you only need to read music if you are performing other people's music
If McCartney writes things down then of course he writes. Doesnt matter what it is, as long as it makes sense to him
He does write music maybe not in the normal sense but his Melodies are original
He clearly doesn't know much about classical music and that's fine - nothing wrong with that. But, to speak disinformation? That's just appalling
Well, stick to pop, Paulie.
1bol1 considering he's a outstanding composer I think he's entitled to an Opinion
Left Leg He is not by classical standards. But, yes everyone is entitled to an opinion, regardless. However his opinion is unfortunately uninformed and wrong, and with his popularity and influence, he's spreading disinformation. He might aswell have sat there and lied.
Beatles might have struck the gold mine on easy-listening market, but that doesn't magically give McCartney the skill to become an "outstanding composer" overnight. There's people who dedicate their life for composing, McCartney is just talking miles over his head here.
WolfPsx Maccartney is one of the greatest of all time and knows a thing or two about composing.
You on the other hand don't.
And those people you are talking about bow down to maccartney,Nobody has written a melody greater than yesterday,ever.
1bol1 most musical critics including howard goodall would dissagree. Mccartney was literally trained by classical composer george martin. Most of paul's genius came from intuition and experimentation. Without him and John pop as we know it wouldnt exist and classical music would be anti tonal bullshit like schoenberg and avant garde
Fake.
The kind of reply I would expect from a musical ignoramus.
What?
Look at all those butthurt middle class classical music students who just got enrolled in music college with their daddy's investment bank money because mom told them they are "musical geniuses" take offense at what the most successful musician of all time said about Montiverdi. It's beautiful to watch those kids who get salty because they'll never be as talented as Paul use classical music as some kind of ego booster.
Wow, you listen to classical music! You're so special! If only Paul had done the same, he could have been as great as Todd who just played some wonderful Schubert in his recital. Paul won't last 50 years (except he just did haha) ;)
TheGreatest Dancer, with all due respect to you, you sound to me like those who voted for Donald Trump here in the United States. Let's acknowledge it, McCartney was never a thinking person; without Lennon's acute intellectual vision, McCartney would have gone nowhere as a songwriter.
I have no idea what Trump has to do with this. Having said that, I'm a classical liberal/libertarian. That's as far removed from Trump nationalism/populism as humanly possible. Nice try poisoning the well, though.
You clearly don't know much about The Beatles. If you did, you would have known that Paul was actually the experimental one. He was the one frequenting intellectual circles such as Indica Gallery while John was sleeping and watching TV. It was only after John met Yoko that he became interested in anything other than 50's rock n' roll and Bob Dylan. Even George Harrison was more experimental, introducing Indian music to rock audiences.
If you knew anything about The Beatles you would realize that Paul was the one who was into classical music and the one that experimented with tape loops. Without him there wouldn't have been Tomorrow Never Knows, which John worte. Yellow Submarine was their first step into psychedelic. Who wrote that? Oh yes, it was Paul! String quartet in a Beatles song? Oh right, Yesterday. The longest single at the time? Hey Jude. A song about loneliness in the Dorian mode? Sounds like Eleanor Rigby. Sgt. Pepper Lonely Hearts Club Band? Paul's idea entirely. Who wrote songs in every style conceivable and mixed it with pop music? Yes, Sir Macca.
I know it's hard for some people who have been fed with this image that Paul was just "the cute one" to actually do some research. You don't know shit, with all due respect. ;)
Please don't take it personally. After all, your Sibelius recital was lovely!
I guess he said the Trump thing because you get so offensive and insult people, If they disagree with what Paul said, so what? Paul may be the most succesful but you cant say he is the most talented, If you like him thats fine and thats your opinion, but if someone likes classical music then dont insult them about it. BTW Have you ever played music in front of people before?? then stop mocking recitals, you look stupid
You seem to be having a hard time here. Let me help you.
I'm not criticizing fans of classical music. I'm criticizing middle-class idiots who who were told by their parents they are musical geniuses and act like snobs because Paul McCartney said something inaccurate about Montiverdi. Listening to classical music is NOT a big deal and doesn't make you smarter or more special. These entitled idiots need to be put in their place every once in a while. :)
Again, I'm not mocking recitals. I'm mocking people who criticize Paul McCartney but, for all their geniuses, all they could accomplish in life was play some wonderful Schubert or something. Also, I did in fact play music live. I sure as hell didn brag about how sooo muuuch better I am than fucking peasant Paul McCartney who only played pop.
Anyway, most of these people don't need to learn anything about classical music. Classical literature would be way more benefitial to them.
TheGreatest Dancer Making ad hominem's is fun, isn't it?
Absolutely WRONG! If you think that McCartney is the contemporary equivalent of Beethoven and Mozart you could not be more mistaken.
simply reinforces my lack of respect for this extremely overrated band !
The band is good. McCartney is just a prick.