oI love the Beatles. I remember the first time I became aware of them as a group. It was the famous Ed Sullivan episode and although I only caught a glimpse, I was hooked. My father was flipping through the channels (no remote; he got his exercise from getting up out of the chair) and for a brief moment, the TV landed on Ed Sullivan. I was about ten years old. "What's this junk?" he exclaimed and then they were gone. But it was enough and I became a fan. Years later, when the group split up, John and Paul each wrote songs specifically for Christmas. Two very different songs, but the same subject. The songs are different in feeling, arrangement and sentiment. I started out loving them both, but only one has stood the test of time.
"And so this is Christmas" simple enough. A statement, a query? Each time I hear this phrase, I start to think. The voice, Lennon's voice, all alone with a guitar. So what have I done? This is a song that causes me to contemplate my role in the season. Even Yoko's voice can't ruin this song. Maybe it's the simplicity of the opening, but it draws me in and I am reflective. Do I treat my fellowmen as I want to be treated? Have I helped anyone in need? As the song builds, my spirit soars. This song is as reverent and hymn-like as any I have heard by the the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. It continues to build and I continue to ascend. There are no gimmicks to this song. Just straight-forward guitar and as it builds, a choir of children and orchestra lift it to the heavens. No synthesizers, no artificial tricks. I love this song and for me, there is no other to epitomize the true meaning of Christmas.
Paul McCartney's song started out being a Christmas favorite. Maybe because I went through a Wings phase. Whatever the reason, I started out loving this song. So I guess the reader knows where I am going with this. It is a peppy, cheerful song, full of goodwill to all. But there is no deep meaning, no contemplative "what have you done?". Instead, it talks about people gathering 'round to "raise a glass and don't look down". In this song, I'm "simply having a wonderful Christmas time". I like my perky songs as much as anyone. But perky can wear thin, and it does with this one. The song kind of starts off on a superficial note for me with the opening synthesizer refrain. Later in the song, the synthesizer distorts Paul's voice. It distorts much more; the feeling of elation that I get from the other song.
This is why I say the Paul's song started out as a favorite, but has disintegrated into a song that I turn the channel on when I hear it. Too gimmicky, no real substance. If I say Paul's song can't compare with Lennon's, I don't mean in this paper. I mean in composition, feeling and sentiment. When I hear Lennon's song, I want to be a better person. It appeals to my senses, both musical and spiritual. The arrangement itself adds to the sensation. "Happy Xmas" is an experience, not just a listen to. McCartney's song, on the other hand, is just a song. I can sing it, hum it, but there is no substance to wrap my head around. The words aren't deep; I'm "simply having a wonderful Christmas time". Maybe that's all Paul ever intended. The synthensizer dates it and twists more than just the melody; it distorts the feeling in me. I need something more and I don't get it from this song. Maybe that's why, when I hear it now, I immediately look for something else on the radio dial.
As I stated previously, I love(d) the Beatles. After all, their not the Beatles anymore. They weren't even the Beatles when they wrote these songs. Each song is about Christmas, each song is easy to sing. But where do I go when I hear them? How do they inspire? Do they need to inspire? For me, yes. Because the season itself is meant to make me a "better man" (Pearl Jam). Lennon's song both the composition, emotion and reaction cause me to think. I want a feeling that I can be a better person. I want to be lifted by the music spiritually. I want the season of goodwill to permeate my soul. It does all these things with "Happy Xmas", but, I'm sorry Paul, your song falls short.
Whew, I was hoping that this would be a standard format contrast so that I could reassure myself I did the right thing taking the mitre saw piece, but, alas, you keep writing real essays that follow their own star and follow their own logic, rather than squeezing themselves into the schoolhouse logic of a standard five-graf sandwich essay.
ReplyDeleteJohn in 2, Paul in 3, and both in 4 is not standard. Usually when I get contrast essays organized this way, I kick them right back to be reorganized. It's easy for me to do that when the material is lame to start with, but your material is the opposite of lame. It's very very good. And, as I said on the mitre saw piece, it would be wrong to shoot down a good piece of work because it blazed its own trail instead of following mine.
So, another passing paper!
I say the material is so good because you are really giving an interesting and complicated analysis of your feelings about and reactions to these songs. That is extremely hard to do well, and you succeed.
ReplyDelete