McCartney with Nirvana at 12-12-12 Concert Video

[Stick_Player]

Originally Posted by Kenzy

To be fair, this thread isn't dedicated to merely positive comments on the performance. And I feel that it's good to have a voice of dissent to provide some type of counter to the ideas being tossed about.

The people here that are saying they didn't like the performance just didn't enjoy listening to it... I doubt that anyone here would say it wasn't for a good cause.

You miss my point.

I want to know why Mugre didn't walk out - as he would've in all other cases. We already know he didn't like it.

[pedro]

I'm not familiar with Nirvana's music but have been a Beatle (McCartney) fan since 1964. I think its pretty darn cool that Paul is still excited by performing and takes these chances.

[Kenzy]

Originally Posted by Stick_Player

You miss my point.

I want to know why Mugre didn't walk out - as he would've in all other cases. We already know he didn't like it.

Nah, I definitely see where you're coming from, man, and it's all good. Personally, I like to see what people on both sides are saying, ya know?

I like to go see local bands perform sometimes and, as you could imagine, they range from rather enjoyable to just-no, but when those bands that don't exactly sound good do go up, I tend to wait a bit to see if they can redeem themselves or to just get a better feel for what they're playing. That is, I don't immediately just bail whenever something I don't necessarily like starts to go down.

[bluewine]

Originally Posted by Kenzy

To be fair, this thread isn't dedicated to merely positive comments on the performance. And I feel that it's good to have a voice of dissent to provide some type of counter to the ideas being tossed about.

The people here that are saying they didn't like the performance just didn't enjoy listening to it... I doubt that anyone here would say it wasn't for a good cause.

I prefer to say I don't understand certain genres or artist as opposed to I don't like this or that. It's just a more positive way to express my opinion.

I don't understand Kanye, I don't dislike him.

Blue

[bluewine]

Originally Posted by pedro

I'm not familiar with Nirvana's music but have been a Beatle (McCartney) fan since 1964. I think its pretty darn cool that Paul is still excited by performing and takes these chances.

Paul was really on his game, pure class.

Truly amazing for those of us that first saw Paul on February 9, 1964.

Blue

[pedro]

I remember it like it was yesterday.

[bluewine]

Originally Posted by pedro

I remember it like it was yesterday.

So do I, they played on February 16, the following week as well.

Brian closed the deal for both shows for 10k.

Blue

[Munjibunga]

Courtney didn't like it. Is she even relevant any more?

[pedro]

Originally Posted by bluewine

So do I, they played on February 16, the following week as well.

Brian closed the deal for both shows for 10k.

Blue

I decided to be a musician right there and then.

[Floyd Eye]

I liked it very much. I am a huge McCartney fan and I think it's better than anything he's done in years.

[DblG]

I didn't think it was bad at all, kinda like it after one listen. Not the perfect matchup, but not the total mis-match many (including myself) thought it'd be.

[muzikman7]

I thought it was very amusing, the fact that they wrote a song instead of taking the easy way out and doing a Beatle song or a Nirvana song was great.

[bluewine]

Originally Posted by Floyd Eye

I liked it very much. I am a huge McCartney fan and I think it's better than anything he's done in years.

I think he knew he had to redeem himself from that Olympics thing ( I didn't see it )

Blue

[Stick_Player]

Originally Posted by bluewine

So do I, they played on February 16, the following week as well.

Brian closed the deal for both shows for 10k.

Blue

And the following Ed Sullivan Show, on Feb. 23 - although it was taped on Feb. 9.

[bluewine]

Originally Posted by Stick_Player

And the following Ed Sullivan Show, on Feb. 23 - although it was taped on Feb. 9.

Really, I didn't know that part of the story.

Major cool.

Blue

[cnltb]

Originally Posted by Kmonk

I agree. I have never liked Nirvana and didn't have any interest in seeing McCartney play with the surviving members.

I don't mind nirvana. Even like a couple of things I have heard.
My issue with mccartney joining them is that to me nirvana communicated( or possibly comunicated) one thing and mccartney pretty much communicates something quite different.
To me, what these two 'stand for' just doesn't go together and the result is not convincing to me.

[Toptube]

Originally Posted by cnltb

I don't mind nirvana. Even like a couple of things I have heard.
My issue with mccartney joining them is that to me nirvana communicated( or possibly comunicated) one thing and mccartney pretty much communicates something quite different.
To me, what these two 'stand for' just doesn't go together and the result is not convincing to me.

Man, Run DMC and Aerosmith didn't care about any of that. They saw an opportunity to have some fun and produce something that they thought somebody else might think is fun, too.

Some bands, especially young bands, might care about that stuff. Its a sign of maturity when parts of two different bands can get together and make separate music.

and really, this is just Nirvana in name. It happens that 3 fourths of the band are there, yeah. But its years since that name stood for something and the reason it stood for something met a young death. Additonally, I'm sure the other two members, just like Grohl, have grown to make other types of music. Much like McCartney, who has had a multi-faceted career and even though he helped create modern pop-rock, he didn't get stuck on it.

[cnltb]

Originally Posted by Toptube

Man, Run DMC and Aerosmith didn't care about any of that. They saw an opportunity to have some fun and produce something that they thought somebody else might think is fun, too.

Some bands, especially young bands, might care about that stuff. Its a sign of maturity when parts of two different bands can get together and make separate music.

and really, this is just Nirvana in name. It happens that 3 fourths of the band are there, yeah. But its years since that name stood for something and the reason it stood for something met a young death. Additonally, I'm sure the other two members, just like Grohl, have grown to make other types of music. Much like McCartney, who has had a multi-faceted career and even though he helped create modern pop-rock, he didn't get stuck on it.

Man, Run DMC and Aerosmith worked very well I think.
Similar in 'message'.
There are many such co-labs that I think have come out very well ( lou reed and metallica, william s.boroughs and michael franti etc).
This one just does not convince me at all.
I just think the name nirvana is not right for it.
Neither of them needs it, and if they are not trying to go the nirvana way, why use the name?

[hdracer]

Originally Posted by Toptube

Man, Run DMC and Aerosmith didn't care about any of that. They saw an opportunity to have some fun and produce something that they thought somebody else might think is fun, too.

Some bands, especially young bands, might care about that stuff. Its a sign of maturity when parts of two different bands can get together and make separate music.

and really, this is just Nirvana in name. It happens that 3 fourths of the band are there, yeah. But its years since that name stood for something and the reason it stood for something met a young death. Additonally, I'm sure the other two members, just like Grohl, have grown to make other types of music. Much like McCartney, who has had a multi-faceted career and even though he helped create modern pop-rock, he didn't get stuck on it.

Don't you mean two thirds?

[mazdah]

Nirvana never sounded better IMO.