Paul Fall
So it looks like Paul McCartney is going to write a musical based on It's A Wonderful Life. All I can say is Sir Paul, don't do it.
In a way, it's beneath you. Your songs have always stood on their own--why should you start writing some that exist merely to prop up a story that isn't yours? Can you imagine the titles: "Save Me, Clarence," "She's A Librarian," "When A Bell Rings..." Awful.
Sure, some rock musicians have written musicals with books by others. Usually the results aren't that impressive. I prefer them to write original rock operas, which may have weak stories, but still have wonderful songs.
The Beatles, of course, starred in movies that were musicals, but they just wrote great songs that didn't have to further the narrative. And while Paul came up with the concept album Sgt. Pepper, really, except for the opening two numbers and the reprise of the title tune, the concept is a fake-out.
On top of that, Paul has been accused of being a bit sappy. So has Frank Capra, who directed the original It's A Wonderful Life. The two are both masters of their craft, but it's questionable how well they'll mix together.
So anyway, Paul, you may like challenges, but you don't really need this. Your songs are great and will be remembered. The same goes for It's A Wonderful Life. No need for the two to meet.
posted by LAGuy @ 8:58 AM
6 Comments:
You're like John Lennon. Don't know how to "yes, and."
LAGuy is like John Lennon in some ways, but he certainly wouldn't agree with John telling Paul "The only thing you done was 'Yesterday' / You probably pinched that bitch anyway."
What should Paul do? He loves playing the oldies for the fans, and we love hearing them. But history will remember him primarily as a songwriter, not a performer. He wrote some of the most brilliant songs of the past six decades.
But I can't think of a single catchy McCartney tune since the mid-80s. (I actually think "Say, Say, Say" is incredibly catchy, although I fear that LAGuy probably hates it. But I like his sappy songs better than his "cool" solo songs.)
And he sure don't need more money.
So why not try his hand at something new? I agree with you that this requires talents he probably doesn't have. It might be totally awful.
Some artists do something stupid late in their career, and it ruins them in the public eye. (Queen was one of the two greatest rock bands in the world, and then they made fools of themselves by delving into disco and funk; they were never again considered cool until Freddy's death turned him into something else.) But that simply can't happen to Paul. He could do a ten-CD set of lousy show tune covers and his legacy would remain untarnished.
Anon: John Lennon was much more harsh. He made fun of Paul for inventing people and writing songs about them. I love a lot of those songs. I just don't want Paul to write songs that further the plot for people he didn't invent in a story that's not his.
Larry: I can think of some solid stuff Paul did after the mid-80s. Flowers In The Dirt is a good album, which includes "My Brave Face" (written with Elvis Costello) and "This One." He also wrote "So Like Candy" with Elvis around the same time.
And in the early 90s from the Off The Ground album there's "Hope Of Deliverance."
After that it gets harder to find catchy stuff, though there are a few songs that aren't bad.
That's kind of funny. I can imagine various conversations in and around the studio:
"Where's Paul?"
"Off somewhere fucking Eleanor Rigby again, I'm sure."
(BTW, now you sound like a union tough protecting his territory, LAGuy. Or an artist.)
I had a friend in show biz who talked to Roger Daltrey about potentially working in a sitcom. My reaction to that is the same as my reaction to Paul's plan--this isn't about protecting any turf, this is about telling a rock god not to dirty himself on a project that's beneath him.
I have LA Guy's concerns, but I also worry that the art of writing catchy musical numbers may lost on everyone in the last 20 years (since "Wicked" perhaps?). Even the great "Hamilton" has only one (imho) hum-able song in "You'll Be Back," which is reprised 2 times. I really try to like "Greatest Show," made for film and all, but . . . . Before that, "La La Land" was mostly notable because they were trying to do a musical without feeling the need to use real singers. It doesn't stand up in my opinion (are High Schools mounting La La Land productions these days?).
Disney is the only outfit that seems to put together a good musical now and then. I think Moana is pretty good (Lin-Manuel Miranda again). Elton John, who is somewhat at the level of McCartney (except he can't do lyrics), had a success with "Lion King" for Disney, but I thought "Aida" was a mess. I would regret having to dislike McCartney's effort, but maybe he can collaborate with someone who knows what they are doing (are the Sherman brothers still alive?)
Post a Comment
<< Home