Wolfgang Amadeus McCartney

Yesterday, all my troubles seemed so far away
Now it looks as though they’re here to stay
Oh, I believe in yesterday.
Suddenly, I’m not half the man I used to be
There’s a shadow hanging over me.
Oh, yesterday came suddenly.

I’ve been running these lyrics through my head lately, as something about them does not fit. The song Yesterday was supposedly written by Paul McCartney in 1964 when he would have been age 20 or 22, depending on which Paul McCartney we are talking about – the original Beatle who performed the song, born 6/18/1942, or the twin brother given a spooky birth date of 1/7/44.

The thing that bugs me about the lyrics is that they are too old and wizened for a twenty something. Kids that age don’t talk about being half the man they used to be, especially since they are barely old enough to be called a man. The song itself is a sophisticated melody, supposedly running through McCartney’s head while he lived with Jane Asher’s parents. Remember, Asher’s mother, Margaret (nee Eliot), was a music professor at Guildhall, and one of her students was George Martin.  I have long speculated that much of the Beatles body of work originated there in that house, and that Paul and John had little to do with its composition. Yesterday has a lovely chord progression and refrain, one might even say sophisticated. It reminds me of a comment received here not too long ago from the mother of a classical pianist:

“My son is a bona fide musician. He has a master’s degree in piano performance from the university of Southern California. … He believes that from the earliest days the Beatles did not write their own music because they did too many complex things that amateurs would not and could not do.”

The question running through my mind is as follows: This song has had over 1,600 cover versions, and was voted in some polls as one of the greatest songs of the twentieth century, with over seven million live performances. Someone of great musical talent wrote it and ought to be given credit. Instead it is attributed to a mop-top kid, who to this day takes credit. Why? Why? Why does the real artist not step forward?

(Quite) some years ago, McCartney was nominated for having written the best song for a movie … Vanilla Sky. It was made in 2001 and starred Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz. The only three things I remember were Diaz complaining to Cruise in the movie that she had swallowed his ejaculate and yet was being ignored, Cruise yelling “Tech support!”, and the song. I just listened to it for the second time in my life. The first was the Oscar presentations of 2002. I remember thinking how mundane the song was, and wondering if they nominated him for the sake of TV ratings? Would they do such a thing?

That triggered another memory, John Denver. In the piece I wrote about how he most likely faked his death, the opening was a video of Denver singing Mother Nature’s Child, again, not a memorable piece of music. But I wondered about nature boy in effect paying tribute to McCartney, as McCartney is as far away from nature as anyone on the planet. Could it be that the song was written about Denver as an inside joke? His public role was mother nature’s child. In private, he was probably nothing like that.

But no one talks out of school, ever.

I realize that the Beatles were a project, that “Paul” McCartney was a set of twins, and that among their uses was introduction of drugs into mainstream culture, feminization of men, and making Brits more likeable to Americans. McCartney, to this day, holds sway and power, and others bow at his feet even as they must know he is mostly sizzle without much steak. These projects are of high importance.

A few years back I was privileged to visit with a woman in our area who is a professional ghost writer. She told me she had written a best seller or two, and when I asked her to name them, she said bluntly that the contract she signed is bullet proof, and that if she named the work, she would lose her means of living. She seemed matter-of-fact and believable. There is power behind the silence in all of  the fakery that goes on around us.


 

Mozart’s undeserved reputation

This reminded me of this work by Dr. Pei-Gwen South called Exploding the Myth of Mozart. It’s a 10,000 word essay not to be skimmed lightly. I first read it over a year ago and have been meaning to return to it when I had a better grasp of classical music. But who can wait that long?

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was, in South’s view, a complete fraud. As the old saying goes, his work was good and original, but that which was original was not good.

As one of the most recognized composers of the Western musical canon, the music and reputation of Mozart is as celebrated today as it was disregarded in his own time. In fact, the eminent status he has come to enjoy, both in print and performance, has become so entrenched as to deflect any question or criticism of its deservedness; by its very magnitude (and the notion of value it invokes) it has cast a pervasive, and consequently detrimental, influence over the tone and direction of Mozart scholarship. … Like so many myths, separate the fact from the fiction, the truth from the untruth, and there remains little of substance that is worthy of all the adulation. One has only to consider the authenticity of his works, the contradictions and incongruities which musical scholarship has uncovered (but largely failed to pursue), and the man himself, and the myth begins to crumble before our very eyes.

South goes on to describe various works attributed to Mozart which I have never heard and never will, so I struggled through that part of the essay. Perhaps Maarten can indulge us, hint hint.

Thus, far from being a compositional genius and creative force, one is left with the undeniable impression of Mozart as rather a master of appropriation and imitation, and a musical hack, who was guilty of fraud and deception. The doubtful might well ask if Mozart was indeed capable of this, and if it was even in keeping with his character, and the answer to this is most definitely ‘yes’.

South goes on to describe a disreputable person, a lazy womanizer, a resentful man who lashed out at his betters, the kind of guy we have all worked with at one time or another. It seems that the real talent behind the myth was his father, Leopold, which makes me wonder why those who rewrote the landscape of the western musical canon did not simply give Leopold his due and bypass the son. It makes no sense!

Mozart’s boorish and vulgar nature is a little-known fact amongst the public at large, and one that is seldom publicized or mentioned even within musical circles. It was this crude demeanour that Milos Forman aptly captured in the film, Amadeus, though, judging by all accounts, his portrayal of the composer was a somewhat watered-down version of his real personality. …

… Leopold, who was well aware of his son’s flaws [in 1782] wrote that his son was “far too patient, or rather easygoing, too indolent, perhaps even too proud, in short, that he is the sum total of all those traits which render a man inactive”, and that “if he is not actually in want … becomes indolent and lazy”

So, according to South, all of Mozart’s unjustified fame and alleged talent is posthumous. In his time he was not well-regarded. My question is, then, why? Why did they choose to make an icon out of this very ordinary composer?

South delves into this, and the answer, while not entirely satisfactory to me, will have to do.

The western musical canon is essentially an Austro-German musical canon, the invention of which took place over the course of the nineteenth century, and whose “ideological significance” issued from its association “with a dominant national culture, perceived as both specifically German and at the same time representative of universal values, a paradox well in tune with German classical art and the new philology” … Beginning in 1850, Breitkopf [a musical house] began publication of an extended series of collected editions of the works of major composers that centered almost exclusively on the Austro-German school. Completed over a 40-year period, it helped to consolidate the notion of a German musical tradition, and effectively gave “official” recognition to its chosen composers, bestowing upon them the status of a “great” composer and the connotations of prestige and value the title carried with it. Mozart’s transition from mediocrity to greatness was facilitated by his inclusion in this series. … By inclusion, Mozart automatically garnered universal approval.

So it appears that much, if not all, of the quality work attributed to Mozart was given to him after his death. But why? Why not simply attribute the work to its real author? The answer, if I understand South correctly, would be that the real composers of these works were not of Austro-German origin.

I thought when I sat down to write this out that I was going to stumble on similarities between McCartney and Mozart, and there are indeed many. Both are of lower talent than is ascribed to them, and both benefit tremendously from the work of anonymous geniuses who are never given credit for the work. But there is a significant difference – McCartney is widely admired in his time, while Mozart was not.

And that reminds me of one final tidbit, a bold prediction by Miles Mathis that he made while writing about the odd fact that Michael Jackson ended up owning the Beatles’ music catalog, and was able to buy it for a relative pittance. It is because, I summarize, that the Beatles don’t really own the work, but are merely a front.

“Another prediction. Due to copyright law, Paul McCartney is due to get his publishing rights back in 2018, without paying a penny for them. I don’t see that happening. I predict Paul will “die” before then. His family will then mysteriously sell the rights back to Sony for far less than they are worth. Lie and let die. Oh, I mean live. If Yoko is still alive then, she will also dump the publishing rights like a hot potato.”

We will have three months of 2018 left to see if this prediction comes true.

 

27 thoughts on “Wolfgang Amadeus McCartney

  1. The lyrics to the SONG “Yesterday” are of course part of a “Project” and a big part of that project is getting people to believe in “The Imaginary” which of course leads right into another SONG later attributed to John Lennon “Imagine” which is about believing in a “Utopian Future”. This, of course, all connects to the bigger project that includes the KJV HOLY BIBLE. In the story of the Cruci-fiction, the character “Jesu” is hanged on a CROS along with the 2 thieves and the 2 thieves represent regrets about the past (Yesterday) and anxieties over the future (Imagine), because in the CORPORATE (corpse orate, DEAD tally-KING) system, you cannot exist in the present, which is, of course, the only place you can exist. In the CORPORATE system you exist only in the past and in the future, i.e “your past credit history and future earning potential”. As a musician of some talent, I can attest to the fact that it takes about 20 years of dedication to master a single instrument. When the Beatles stopped touring it may have been due to the fact that members of the crowd had realized that the harmonies just weren’t there and the sophisticated melodies and multitudes of chord changes were just too difficult to pull off. David CROSby was exposed when he agreed to fill in for another musician back in the late 60’s and the band members he was “HELP-ing’ were shocked at his lack of “talent”, having only known him by reputation and the recordings attributed to him. I remember seeing a cover band about 15 years ago where every single song they performed sounded “exactly” like the studio recording. Every note was perfect. Every harmony was perfect. Every drum beat was perfect. They were either the most talented cover band ever or they were playing a mean air guitar to the original recordings! That “air guitar” reminds me of a high school “air guitar competition” that was held at my High School back in the 80’s. The kid that was awarded first prize in that competition was not musical at all but was one of the “chosen star athletes” and I have to admit that he put on a pretty good stage show synching to the prerecorded music and I would guess that he had never picked up a musical instrument before his preparations for that competition. That same kid, the following year, would take what would have been the game-winning shot to win the State Championship in Basketball but he missed the shot and his team lost the State Championship game by a single point.

    Like

    1. Interesting … Crosby is, by reputation anyway, not only untalented, but a mean SOB. So why, when Melissa Etheridge was looking for a sperm donor to make her baby, did she choose him? Why? Why? Is it because his middle name is van Cortland and he is descended from the Van Rensselaer line? Birth canals have more to do with fame than talent.

      Like

      1. Indeed. The trail from Crosby’s loins travels through the birth mother, Julie Cypher(!!!) down into peerage rich soil, including J.Cypher’s first husband, Lou Diamond Phillips (nee: Upchurch). Somewhere in this cluster of inbred genes is a cat named Andrew Jackson Kinsey. Priceless!

        Like

  2. I just want to say that the discovery of the McCartney twins is Brilliant, I have followed this for many years and discovered a photo circulating around pinterest that shows both Paul and Mike together. I thought WOW here is more proof right in plain sight. If there is a way I can send it to you by email I will.

    Like

  3. Mark, you invited my commentary. Where to start?

    First off, a confession. I have never been able to warm up to the music of Mozart. In the movie Amadeus they put a judgment into the mouth of the emperor that I find absolutely spot on: “Too many notes.” So much of Mozart sounds to me like diddling and trilling around to hide the lack of real development. Or perhaps to cloak the lifting of musical ideas from others.

    Except in some of the later works. In these, the notes all belong. But they are so different from the early works; I am not surprised to learn that scholars have detected the hand of other composers.

    For so many Mozart pieces, I feel like the palatability comes from playing them superfast. There is a movement in music now called “Tempo Giusto,” the Right Tempo. It claims that our interpretations of composers’ tempo markings all err on the side of speed. Slow down Bach and Beethoven and you begin to hear the real musicality. Slow down Mozart (IMO) and you hear the banality. Mozart has to be played at breakneck speed to have any compelling quality. Else it just slides off the ears.

    Next confession: I have always—from youth even—despised the Beatles and every note of their corpus. If they wrote it or someone else, I don’t care. If you have a sense for what popular music was before the British Invasion, and for what happened afterwards, you feel like you crossed a Continental Divide. As I have written earlier, I think that pop music is an experiment in which we are the lab rats. And I think the experiment started with the damnable Beatles.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Interesting! When we are driving and listening to music, I will say things like “That sounds Bachy” or “Mozarty.” I too do not like most of Mozart, as it is too jumpy. Bach is nice but soon wears on me. Nice thing about classical … there is a lot of it. We just discovered Finlandia on our recnt Montana trip.

      And you’re right about the Beatles, of course, except that they brought with them tuneful music, which does not seem to exist anymore. Did they write it? Of course not. There seems a deliberate attempt to remove enjoyment from music, and substitute just a mood … Music has been useful in my era in separating generations and social groups. Which reminds me … I played Sgt Pepper for my folks one night, and they did not like it, of course. But I wanted them to hear When I’m 64, and they liked it and Mom said “They’re just making fun of us.”

      The phoniness of these lifetime actors like McCartney and Lennon offends me enough to write about it. How do they look in the mirror?

      Like

      1. Music is all around us…We hear it EVERYWHERE we go. it’s a great MOOD Setter, A perfect universal tool for setting the tone and reaching the Masses to get the Message across. Being a musician myself,Born,breed, and still rocking out of Boston MassachusettsI’ve had more than my share of LIFE’S BLUES and seen what it means to pay and play, and keep paying life’s dues…But it’s not *All FAKE, * Guys like Crosby just got lucky being with a chosen few. His chord progression is terrible,basically just amateur. I jammed with him and a few other guys when he was doing a show at Woods Hole,and once with him and Devon Allman(Gregg’s son) when Devon was doing a gig with Royal southern Brotherhood at the Rockpalast in Germany…I’m not putting him down, But let’s just say, David Stumbles through his set..The studio is a magician for a musician, it cleans up the mess and allows the listener to hear a clean act, with of course, a few tricks behind the scenes that the performer cannot normally deliver/I’m sure you have all heard the difference between a live show and studio session.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. “The western musical canon is essentially an Austro-German musical canon-”
    “Johann Heinrich Scheibler recommended A440 as a standard in 1834 after inventing the “tonometer” to measure pitch,[2] and it was approved by the German Natural History Society the same year.[3]”
    (What was this “standard” replacing? Sedation with anxiety?)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A440_(pitch_standard)
    Any chance the brain was being pulped by mad scientists in the era of Dr. Frankenstein through the use of music? Separating emotion from critical function is the mandate of all pop culture, corporate division. Music will do that—Exibit A: Rap “””Music”””….

    Like

  5. Having two close relatives who have suffered from strokes in the past, I sometimes wonder if loud music and other contaminates (i.e. spirits, drugs) are the main causes.
    Every film or tv show nowadays seems to have some skellum blethering over some repetitive beat (they call it rap music – I prefer to call a spade a bloody shovel, so in this case – crap music) at a volume loud enough to wake the dead (and undead while it’s nearly Halloween), surely this is not good for the old brain matter? Rock concerts, discos, etc, even worse case scenarios.
    Spirits and drugs (legal/illegal), or anything else that makes one lightheaded, off one’s head, etc, can’t be good for it either.

    ‘If they don’t get you one way, they’ll get you another way.’ To quote one pal who may or not be paranoid, and may have heard it someplace else.

    Like

  6. that Tom Cruise movie was a remake of a Spanish movie “Abre los ojos” (open your eyes) also featuring Penelope Cruz. Tom felt in love with her at the time. Mozart was creative at the time where there was not much else to do for skilled kids. No youtube, no videogames, etc. Not much to waste your time on. I know some talented kids myself who play piano or guitar really excellently. I play some guitar myself and I can tell if I see a talent. so I wouldn’t exclude Mozart being really skilled musician. Of course the official story may be vastly exaggerated, we’ll never know. Somebody wrote this eternal music as somebody wrote “Yesterday”‘s lyrics. It could even be one of the McCartneys. Being from the families may not be the only reason why they choose the to play pop stars. Some of them are really talented. I remember an interview with the Rush-singer Geddy Lee, who said something like “you start to play an instrument without having a clue and if you keep going after some time you’ll occasionally become an instrumentalist”. Do you know this one:
    https://rocknerd.co.uk/2016/10/13/theodor-adorno-of-the-frankfurt-school-wrote-all-the-beatles-songs-as-a-cultural-marxist-assault-on-america-possibly/

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Fascinating! I hope everyone passing by here clicks on that link. I cannot let it go by without looking deeper into it. I know, I just know, that the odds of being a gifted performer who can play an instrument and sing and be good looking … all in one package, rare beyond the pale.

      And I grudgingly admit that McCartney, the one who because our current day Paul, has some performing talent, but that it is wildly exaggerated. He’s a ham-fisted pianist, and I would not be surprised if there are ghost musicians at work behind his public performances. But the ability to play left-handed guitar, for a rigthy, is not nothing.

      Like

    2. I play guitar and keyboards, but my brother Iain just has to hear a song and he can suss the thing out and play it in minutes on his acoustic guitar, while others (like me) have to get the sheet music and can spend many a waking hour/day/week/month/year learning the song.
      I read an article – 90s or earlier – in which ex-members of the Byrds, Roger and Chris Hill mentioned how they wished they could remember which guitar effects they used on their Younger than Yesterday/Notorious Byrd Brothers albums. At the time, I thought, they were in all probability stoned, now I think they didn’t obviously play on the record, just like their first album.

      As for Adorno, I found this illuminating –
      https://www.big-lies.org/nuke-lies/www.nukelies.com/forum/do-famous-bands-really-write-their-own-songs.html

      Like

      1. S.V. Do famous bands really write their own material? The answer to that question is YES and NO. some do and some don’t. The real question is,HOW MUCH of it is truly their OWN ? Today, a lot of people are starting to question this,and they are not alone.Musician’s question this,as well. I started writing in my teen’s back in the 60’s…Did I ever pen a hit piece,NO,and in my twenties I wasn’t writing..Suddenly,I’m not HALF the MAN I used to be. I mean,how long ago was it that you’d actually went from being a kid to an ADULT at that point in your life ? Some people live a secluded sheltered lifestyle and never see SHIT ! they only repeat what they hear,While other’s are much more exposed to the world to write about their own experience,and sometimes may be writing about the scars and adventures of what they have witnessed in others. Now getting back to the musical and lyrical authenticity of these works, it’s tough to prove who WROTE,STOLE,or BOUGHT what…Many have been accused or suspect in presenting the works of another as one’s OWN…straight out plagiarism ! Hell, Look at all the shit ELVIS was accused of palming…The song”CAN’T HELP FALLING IN LOVE’ was supposedly, snatched off some poor bastard crying on a bar stool,scribbling his sorrows away ,on a napkin…Was,or is there any TRUTH to it, Who knows…And if there was,Then maybe at the time he wasn’t HALF THE MAN HE USED TO BE !!

        Like

        1. Forgot to say,CAN’T HELP FALLING IN LOVE,wasn’t written by ELVIS…the credit went to WEISS/ PERETTI/ and LUIGI CREATORE…Even if none of them were the CREATOR… perhaps it would have looked better and harder to prove any thievery,by having three conspiring names on the label,instead of one.

          Like

  7. Music is just another means of communication and is probably more successful than the written word , MSM, films etc. to get a certain message across. It’s very subtle and insidious. How often do you find words and music of popular songs infiltrating and cluttering your brain when you least expect it? Sometimes it’s almost impossible to get rid!
    Personally I think a lot of it is just about money and nothing else. Imagine there is a finite amount of money let loose in the world and it’s got to be shared by ‘the families.’ The only way they can do this without attracting suspicion is through organisations. Think, Hollywood, BBC,UN ,National Trust ( (UK) World Wildlife, All the big charities …………….the list goes on and on. These organisations then hire these mainly useless progeny and pay them stupid amounts …………………………….usually taxpayers’ money. Where the money is genuinely from ‘family coffers’ it’s ‘lent’ and passed around to other family members via lawsuits and countless other devious methods. ( Beatles/ Jackson ) These ‘stars’ and ‘celebrities’ are never really as rich as they are painted. As I say, the money is ‘lent’ , ready to be passed around when a new project is initiated.
    That’s my theory anyway.

    Like

    1. Sorry Honey, The money ain’t lent. it’s all been spent…and it’s painted with a far broader brush of riches than you could ever imagine.

      Like

  8. I stumbled on this site over 3 hrs. ago, and not to jump on coattails, I too have secretly wondered about Paul/Faul penning “Yesterday” at age 20-ish.

    sigh It’s not easy being “woke.”

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s