March 23, 2012

And In Today's BLITHERING RAGE Update:

OMG LAST NIGHT IN A BAR I HAD TO HEAR A 22 YEAR OLD STRAIGHT WHITE DUDE I KNOW AND DO NOT LIKE POMPOUSLY TELL SOME LADY THAT CARRIE B. WAS IN "SOME SORT OF PUNK SUPERGROUP BEFORE PORTLANDIA"



14 comments:

  1. This reminded me of a cartoon I have been looking for for years:

    http://peelslowlynsee.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/comic-clash.jpg

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OH SNAP!

      As everyone probably knows or would guess, I hate Wings. And BAD. And condescending straight white boys not long out of high school. Oh lord.

      Can someone make a case for Wings, here, though? That would rule. I want to understand. (Actually, I don't--but I do want to see some clever reasoning and snark, please.)

      Delete
    2. I'll try...
      I think that people like me, meaning "Paul" people (as opposed to "John" people), have always had a soft spot for Paul's ability to write great melodies, and we think that for the most part, that ability was carried over into his solo stuff, and some of the WINGS material as well (though, not all of it, mind you). I think that the first two solo albums - McCartney and RAM - are really quite good, with some gems here and there (Every Night, Junk, Teddy Boy, Maybe I'm Amazed, Too Many People, Smile Away, Heart of the Country), and I also like Wild Life, the first official WINGS LP (Some People Never Know, Tomorrow). Red Rose Speedway is terrible all-around, but Band On The Run is a great album that stands the test of time. Venus and Mars has a few good songs in there (Venus and Mars, Magneto and Titanium Man), but it did go downhill from that point forward. Overall, though, I think the first five years produced enough good musical output to justify the overall career of the band. The thing that always pisses me off is when people treat John's solo stuff as genius, and always, always put down Paul's work from that same period. The fact is that John made some real stinkers after Imagine (even Mind Games is fairly weak!). So, anyway, WINGS is unarguably a mixed bag, but for me, the good stuff always outweighed the not-so-good and the terrible.

      Delete
    3. Yeah, exactly--the Beatles would not have worked without Paul and John and George and Ringo, their weaknesses and CHEESE and fights and all that. A lot of John stuff is TERRIBLE.

      But surprisingly good is his ?ROCK AND ROLL? album (name is ?brackets 'cause I don't remember and am running too late to Google). At first I was gonna vom about the "Boney Maroney" cover, but it is actually genius.

      And I did spend a whole summer in something like '83 or '84 listening to the Paul soundrack to ?Give My Regards to Broadway? (Ballroom Dancing!).

      Plus, LIVE AND LET DIE is the most hilarious James Bond theme EVER. So Paul has value, just easily mocked value.

      Delete
  2. I've never bothered with Wings, mostly because I'm generally completely uninterested in Sir Paul. And I've almost never listened to BAD, though I have a certain nostalgic fondness for a couple of those BAD II singles.

    I have a friend who could make a case for Wings. I never pay attention to him, though, so I don't know what it is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm an historically super-rabid Beatles fan, to the point of filling half my brain by the age of 11 with Beatles bios authorized and unauthorized, including the really filthy one by Pete Shotton, "John Lennon's boyhood best friend." John got on my nerves back then, George seemed kind of marginal, and Paul was a dip. I recognize their collective genius even with a more nuanced take on music now--

      but yeah, Paul is boring.

      And Ringo is the best Beatle.

      Delete
    2. Spoken like a true POISON fan, Mr. Tiger..."Dude, their first album is GENIUS!"

      Delete
  3. please not a straight white dude

    ReplyDelete
  4. Point taken, but honestly, how many non-straight non-white non-dudes currently aged 22 could tell you about the earlier career of C. Brownfield, I mean, Brownstein? You's old, lady.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am the oldest and it RULZ.

      I guess in the case I wrote about, it was the whole "I know a deep secret and piece of gossip and so therefore I am the coolest and most subculture." It was the attitude more than the lack of knowledge.

      And doesn't, like, EVERY article about Portlandia talk about how CB is punk royalty? I thought sorority and frat dances played Sleater-Kinney these days.

      ANYHOW. I stand by my earlier stance on TIRESOME DUDES.

      Delete
    2. Sure, I'll buy that. But, like, why would anyone under 30 want to watch Portlandia, let alone read an article about it? Actually, why would anyone want to watch it? Shit is weaker than satirical essay segments on NPR. Not that CB isn't awesome in most other ways.

      I can't make a case for Wings, but I'll go to the mat for the Double Fantasy album.

      Delete
    3. It is v-e-r-y convenient for me that even though some of the social science I do is linked to "social psychology," my disciplinary affiliations allow me to pretend than individual psychology is relatively unimportant--

      that is to say, who knows why anyone does anything? Including watching Portlandia.

      But the kids watch it! That is real! I have data!

      I don't care, but I have data.

      And I'll join you in re: Double Fantasy. Yoko Ono was the best thing ever to happen to John Lennon, and even to the Beatles.

      Delete