Victorino Matus has written an article criticizing Paul McCartney in The Weekly Standard. A friend and fellow Beatles fan sent me the link and suggested I comment.

I should start by saying I was a stone-cold Beatles freak for a long time. Like Matus and a lot of my friends, I discovered them in the 1980s. It's a tribute to their staying power that so many of us who were too young to remember the Beatles breaking up still wound up being fans a decade or more later. They were my absolute favorite band for a long time.

But then, one day...

...a switch kind of went off in my head: I liked them, but I didn't revere them anymore. I started to find other music I liked every bit as much and even (dare I say it?) some I liked more. The love was gone, but I guess you never forget the thrill of your first love. The Beatles were mine, musically anyway.

Today I find that when I listen to Beatles music, I'm far more attracted to the early stuff. Basically, Rubber Soul, Revolver, and earlier. Of the late recordings, they don't thrill me like they used to. My favorite late-era album is Let It Be, which is as pretty much a throwback to their early days. Of recordings made by former Beatles, I find that Ringo Starr's Ringo album is probably the best of the post-Beatles Beatle recordings. I'm not even kidding. For one thing, it's got all the former Beatles on it--every single one of 'em. They almost could have gotten away with calling it a Beatles album. Also, many of the tunes are great. On the other hand, George Harrison's All Things Must Pass is probably better musically, but has less of that Beatles feel. I love 'em both, and it's ironic to me that the best post-Beatles recordings don't put John or Paul at center stage. But I like a lot of those two's solo work, too.

Anyway, nowadays I enjoy some Beatles music, and still greatly respect them for their creativity and their contribution to music. But there's plenty of other music that I like as much or more than their stuff. So if you're still a Beatle-worshipper, you may not see things my way.

But I remember I had this experience one day, watching an old interview with John: I suddenly realized wow, he was just a great big airhead, wasn't he? People revere this guy but really, he wasn't all that bright or enlightened. Of course, that was part of what he was trying to tell people on many of his later
recordings--some of which I also like better than a lot of the Beatles material.

Anyway, here's my point: I don't agree with Matus at all. Some people seem to have this idea that once a song has been recorded the "perfect" way by the original artist, that's it. It's done, not to be touched. I think that is a great way to turn the creators and their songs into, as Matus himself puts it, "museum pieces, fit only for reverence from a distance and certainly not to be commodified on the concert stage." What I don't get is how he could say this, and then still criticize McCartney for pulling out some old Beatles stuff. I think Paul should play all of John's songs that he wants, and George's too. To avoid doing it would be wrong--and not just because he was part of the original recordings.

Music lives best when it's perfomed again and again by different people. Some of my favorite songs are covers. The most exquisite version of the Allman Brothers Band's Whipping Post I've ever heard was done by two acoustic guitarists (yes, acoustic guitars!) in a little bar at an airport in Lansing, Illinois. I love U2's rendition of Helter Skelter, and I even like Guns'n' Roses' version of Live and Let Die. I loved Stevie Ray Vaughan's seering versions of Hendrix' Voodoo Chile', and his version of Stevie Wonder's Superstition is wonderful. I have about a dozen Hendrix recordings, many of which I treasure, but that doesn't take away from my enjoyment of other people doing his songs. I also love Eric Clapton's cover of Hendrix' Stone Free.

The Beatles themselves also covered some pretty cool old country and R&B numbers on their early albums. What on Earth is wrong what that? I frankly think most people would cry if they heard Paul McCartney perform John Lennon's Imagine. Why not? Who's stupid enough to think Paul's "stealing" John or George's music? Would anybody but a fool think he's being "greedy?" For Chrissakes, if you're a billionaire, who cares if you pick up $50 million on a concert tour?

He was part of much of that old Beatles music, even if he didn't write it all. More importantly, who cares if he wrote it? What if he got up in concert and sang some old Carole King number? Wouldn't he sound great singing John Denver's Sunshine On My Shoulder? Hell, he could do a return tribute to U2 and do a version Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For. His voice would probably be perfect for it.

Nah. Victorino Matus is full of hot air. Sing what you want, and rock on Paul!