Melodicist throwdown
My Kiwi doppelganger Danielle hit me with a tough question tonight. I immediately thought of you, the Ranh Ranh community, as this is perhaps one that can only be settled by thoughtful community dialogue/insults.
"Paul McCartney vs. George Gershwin: whose is the most important body of work, pop-songwriting-wise?
[Equally cool spouse] says Paul. I say George. I need ammo. Whose side are you on?"
Let battle come down....
"Paul McCartney vs. George Gershwin: whose is the most important body of work, pop-songwriting-wise?
[Equally cool spouse] says Paul. I say George. I need ammo. Whose side are you on?"
Let battle come down....
posted by Alex at 11:19 PM
10 Comments:
GG's early song-pluggin' is better than the early Beatles, Porgy and Bess is richer than even my favorite Paul song cycles, Rhapsody in Blue is hummable (can't say that of Liverpool Oratorio), and (I'm not sure if this is fair, but) Gershwin has the advantage of SO many interpreters. Just looked at itunes' Gershwin songbook. Egad. No disrespect to PMc, but is there ANY contest?
Sure there's a contest if you are talking about the impact of their *pop songs.* Yes, McCartney doesn't come within a lightyear of Gershwin in song cyles, or classical works. I suppose I could frame this argument to compare "who's a better bassist?" or "who had more one legged, or vegetarian wives" to help my argument out, too. I say Paul's body of pop songs is the most significant in the only way you can calculate popularity- the combined figures of sales, cover versions and airplay. Let's say that the two wrote for different reasons, audiences and utilized different delivery technology. You can still compare how they charted. No single songwriting entity dominanted the pop landscape like the Beatles. Paul is half of that. Wings, though they often sucked, had nearly similar pop success. Again, this is an argument about pop impact, not who wrote better songs, or had a higher ratio of good to bad work. Here's my next poll suggestion: Franz Liszt v. Al Green: who was more devout and who got more action?
Hey, Equally Cool Spouse, I think you're underplaying the impact of Gershwin songs to suit your own nefarious Beatle-lovin' purposes. Now, maybe this is just me, but I'm equally likely to know all the words to one of the 'big' Gershwin tunes as I am to know the lyrics to Paul songs - and I've made it a mission of my life to know Paul songs, whereas my Gershwin-knowledge has been more of an osmosis-based thing. Surely that means that Gershwin is more of a 'fabric of popular culture' dude than you give him credit for? I've been singing 'But Not For Me' all goddamn day thanks to this argument...
Oh, and also: a gazillion covers of 'Yesterday' does not a standards-songbook make. 'The Man I Love'. 'Someone To Watch Over Me'. 'I Got Rhythm'. 'Our Love is Here To Stay'. 'Let's Call the Whole Thing Off'. 'They Can't Take That Away From Me'. 'Summertime'. Apart from the erstwhile 'Scrambled Eggs', what's Paul got? Nuttin! Screw Paul and his stoner ass and his 'Rockestra'!
(I speak as someone who has been trying to learn to play 'I Will' on the ukulele for about a month now, of course. You don't see me trying to learn 'Embraceable You'. Inconsistent? Moi?)
Listen to Gershwin's left hand on The Piano Rolls...he's the better bassist.
I was all ready to talk about my collages of Robert Smith in 1986.
Oh well.
Ummmm
Paul sings better!
uhhhhhh
George died too young
and
Paul maybe has lived too long!
But I think George would be wicked impressed with the little key change in
Jenny Wren from Paul's new record.
And I know that Paul would say Gershwin is better.
Nice Work if You Can Get It
Love Walked In
I've Got A Crush On You
They Can't Take That Away from Me
A Fine Romance
I Got Rhythm
My Ship
Oh, Lady Be Good
my, my lord. just today i called the hef to sing the praises of "sam & delilah". it's a song that practically forces you swing your hips as you walk down the street with a naughty grin on your face. the body of work is not only huge, but hits or not, it is LUSH. and that's not even taking into account the performances that have come as a result of the songs: frank vs. ella in an "i've got a crush on you" smackdown! fred & ginger wistfully singing how you can't take that away from [them] on the ferry back from new jersey! ginger's adorable & triumphant 'ho ho ho' in 'they all laughed'. louis crooning that bess is his woman now. gene kelly dancing in a painting as an american in paris. the opening of manhattan.
i love me some beatles, but honestly? it just seems a silly comparison.
I'm going to partially swap sides briefly and say that I don't think it's a *silly* comparison. But Gershwin wins.
Alex, you're my designated Paul hitter. Take a stand, dude!
I happen to have fridge magnets of both GG and The Beatles on my fridge, so....
Bekkah's more than ably made the case for GG (although I will pedantically point out A Fine Romance is Kern, not Gershwin. At which point you could easily sub in "Love Is Here To Stay" without missing a beat).
I think the crux is in the word "important". Not better or worse. Just more important. It's further qualified by "body of work, pop songwriting-wise". So cultural influence from celebrity alone is right out.
I still say Paul. The reason is that Paul's *songs* have made a more unique impact on popular song and on culture than GG's. Of course GG soundtracks any number of Woody Allen films, Manhattan soirees, etc and has had an enormous influence. But he was working in the tradition of Kern, alongside Cole Porter, Rodgers/Hart, Fields/McHugh etc., all of whom also wrote fantastically melodic, witty songs with summed up the patrician and elites-driven aesthetic of the 1920's-'40s. He was the master of an established art form, working alongside other masters as an exemplar of the form.
But ask a teenager in the slums of Rio de Janeiro or Nairobi to hum "I've Got A Crush On You" and he can't. Ask him to hum Yesterday or Let It Be and there's a good chance he can. Also Hey Jude, Penny Lane, etc. Is Hey Jude as good a song as "But Not For Me"? No. But did Gershwin's songs have the same importance to world culture as Paul McCartney's? No. Paul McCartney's songs soundtracked the world, and continue to do so. GG's are among the cultural highlights of a time that is past. The art remains, but the influence does not.
Even if you look at it strictly musically, I would say Paul McCartney's songs -- admittedly hard to divorce from The Beatles as a whole -- have been more important to the development of music. Yes, GG was a master, but McCartney's songs influenced thousands of musically-inclined kids to write and perform their own songs rather than performing GG's or Porter's. They helped democratize music, they invented new musical genres (e.g Helter Skelter), and they sold absolute bucketloads.
One distorting factor is that we view GG's work through the prism of the great artists who interpreted it, whereas mcCartney's is viewed through his own performances. It's hard to separate the stunning melodicism of "We All Stand Together" from the unfortunate treatment given to it by Rupert And The Frog Chorus (OK just kidding about that one).
I don't know -- that's my best shot. Perhaps if we could hire a lawyer to tighten up the language of the question, we might be able to get somewhere.
There was a great line on The Gilmore Girls this season. Zach said that if writing a hit was so easy why hadn't Paul McCartney had one in 20 years.
Let that question swim around in your heads for a while Ranh Ranh-ers!
Post a Comment
<< Home