LUX HYPE POST

yall,

i have to post smth about this RN before i forget. i am super hype abt LUX and idk why LOL. 

leaving an article here (in Spanish) abt the teasers.

that's it!! ill have to make a follow up post once i can explain why im excited and what im hoping for + why i love her LMAO. thnx for reading all this <3333

dev.

P.S a lil photo dump of good pics i made/saved recently only for myself. but yall can watch I GUESS (jk it took me a bit bc blogger mobile is ass So pLz watch my pics.. ಥ⁠‿⁠ಥ) 

Fixing a Hole (in the Beatles narrative): Discussing Paul McCartney

Paul McCartney has one of the longest and most successful careers of any musician in history. Everyone knows he was a core part of The Beatles, and everyone, regardless of age or nationality, knows at least one of his songs. But even beyond The Beatles, his accomplishments with Wings and as a solo musician are still remarkable, and he's selling out stadiums to this day.

Despite being considered a living legend, there is a long tradition of disregarding his role in the creation of modern pop music as well as his influence in other genres. For a man with countless biographies written about him, Paul is still seen as a two-dimensional cartoon character in certain ways. However, before we can discuss why, we have to explain the history of how Paul has been portrayed to the public over the years.

The narrative that was set by rock critics after The Beatles broke up (aided by a spiteful John Lennon), was that Paul was the PR Beatle. A total control freak, hence why bought more shares of Northern Songs (the company him and John set up to publish their songs together) behind Lennon's back, and why he didn't want to sign with manager Allen Klein. 

Not only that, but his solo work from the early seventies was put down in comparison to what his two songwriting bandmates, John and George, were releasing. While they were being praised for being "authentic," Paul was regarded as the worst solo musician of the group and Ram in particular was called "monumentally irrelevant" in it's orginal 1971 review by Rolling Stone.

Even after the Beatles made up in the mid 1970s and John admitted to exagerating and lying due to feeling wronged by Paul, the damage was already done. The general public still loved Paul as well as his new ventures with Wings, but in rock circles and certain Beatle fan circles, he was still seen as a less serious musician. 

In the wake of John Lennon's murder and throughout the 80s, the myth-creators that call themselves biographers (I'm talking about you Philip Norman), fanned the flames of Lennon vs McCartney discourse for decades to come. John became an idol in the literal sense of the word. He was the truth-teller, the only avant garde musician in The Beatles, and the perfect activist that everyone should aspire to be like. And while there are aspects of John Lennon The Myth that are rooted in reality, there is something deeply disturbing to me about taking an unfair act of violence and dehumanizing the victim in order to reinforce a narrative about why they are a better artist than their bandmate Not to mention the horrific conspiracy theories that accused Yoko Ono of carrying out the murder, thus degrading his surviving family as well.

Recently, the tides have turned radically in favour of Paul. His solo work has finally come back to being appreciated, with Ram being cited as the first indie pop album due to it's DIY nature, and he's recieved more empathetic coverage by both biographers and music fans.

Get Back (2021), directed by Peter Jackson, shows previously unseen and restored footage that didn't make it into the original Let It Be documentary released alongside the album in 1970, after the Beatles had already parted ways. In it, we see Paul McCartney not as a tough authoritarian, but a disheveled young man, trying his best to keep the spirits up and push through even though he knows this is the end of the line. 

To me, a great part of this rediscovery of Paul can be attributed to the more compassionate portrayal of the breakup offered by Jackson's Get Back. The tension doesn't fall squarely on one persons shoulders, but rather on the collective miscommunications and pre-existing resentments within the group that were allowed to fester.

But the question remains: Why has this original narrative prevailed? How have so many people been fooled to believe that there is no depth to Paul?

Well, it all boils down to this: Paul McCartney is not a very public person, despite being a public figure. He has discussed emotional topics like his grief after John's murder, Linda's battle with cancer and his relationship with the other Beatles in interviews, but he usually sticks to the same answers and anecdotes. Rarely ever does he reveal more than he has to. He keeps his guard up on the press, and for good reason too, since his every move can and often times will be interpreted in bad faith. 

There is also this idea that an artist has to reveal his deepest traumas through their art or in public in order to be a "real" artist. This is often brought up when comparing John and Paul. Whereas Lennon exposed very intimate details about himself in the press and in his songs multiple times, McCartney has created a public persona to allow for his own privacy, and his songs cover a wide variety of themes that aren't strictly auto biographical. 

But again, just because he doesn't want to reveal his emotional core to the public, doesn't mean he doesn't have one. Beatles fans have analyzed Paul for years now, using the information that we do have as well as the repeated themes in his songwriting. With this, we can piece together a more comprehensive, empathetic tale of Paul McCartney than what a lot of Beatles writers have done in the past. And we can see how that view of Paul has been making it's way into the mainstream.

Nevertheless, the official story still haunts the public. The media narrative created around the myth of the Beatles is so powerful, so all consuming, that whenever Paul says anything that strays from the established "canon," even if it's something he personally experienced, certain types of Beatles fans are quick to dismiss him. They want both the performance and the real thing. They want Paul to reveal new information, but they also want him to adhere to (and never contradict) the traditional Beatles tale that's been told since at least the 80s.

Tumblr user amoralto put it best when discussing the Get Back documentary before its release:

"Basically, the very reframing, the very act of recutting of the film in and of itself, will be (and already is) seen by many people as a rewriting of history. Which is sad and silly, because in this case the history should be rewritten; it’s just that however well it’s written, it’s still at the mercy of being read, and how, and by who."

In 2027, the world will turn it's expectant eyes to four new biopics about each of the Beatles. It is my hope that the tropes and myths that have surrounded the story of this wonderful group will be forgotten in favour of a more fair portrayal of all members, including Paul, taking into account the real human beings behind the narrative.

an album i like a lot: silent alarm by bloc party

hi,

im writing this from my phone because im too lazy (and stoned) to turn on my computer. i had to download the blogger app for this. btw.

anyway, im listening to this one in full for the first time, and its really a great record.

on the surface, its seems very of its time (2005), at least to me, and not at all in a bad way. the vocals remind me of a lot of alt rock/emo bands which i love, and i could totally hear gerard way doing some of these songs LOLL.

but, the sound and overall direction is soo interesting. it's clear just how much post punk was an influence and i love it.

plus, it was released on february 2, 2005. just one day after my birthday!! yaay

heres the link to listen on spotify 

and heres the album on youtube 

standout songs: helicopter, she's hearing voices, plans

loves you (the girl reading this),

devon.

a visit to the museum and so long, frank lloyd wright

the other day, i went to the museum of the decorative arts in madrid.

 i originally went there to see an exhibit about the works of gianni versace, which was fantastic albeit a little short. there were valentino, chanel, ysl and of course, versace clothes on display, along with decorative objects like porcelain jars, silver candleholders and so on, following the theme of each room of the exhibition. after walking through all the rooms twice, in a state of both awe and admiration at the delicate craftmanship of the items that surrounded me, i decided to see the rest of the museum since i didn't have any plans that afternoon. plus, it was free.

opposite to the versace exhibit, a sign pointed to the entrance of an exhibit about the evolution of design throughout the ninteenth and twentieth centuries that caught my eye, so i walked in.

the exhibit was definitely aimed at a more specialised public than the versace one, with a lot of technical terms explaining every detail in the small signs next to the objects in display, which varied greatly from each other in size and appearance. all of them were typical household items: cups, plates, chairs, and tables abounded, some prettier than others, but all of them on elevated pedestals, given the same reverence and space that would be offered to a picasso painting. 

in a room off to the right, with an entrance so poorly lit i almost skipped it entirely, there was a window pane, designed by non other than frank lloyd wright. 

of course, my first thought wasn't "wow, i can't believe this window was designed by the american architect frank lloyd wright!" it was "oh, it's that guy from the simon and garfunkel song." which is a separate but equally nerdy statement. i took a picture of the sign next to it. not only because i thought it was kinda funny but also because "so long, frank lloyd wright" is one of, if not my absolute favourite simon and garfunkel song of all time.

as i stated previously, frank lloyd wright was an american architect born in 1867 who revolutionized design and architecture with his unique vision. he created the term organic architecture to describe a philosophy of architecture that promotes the harmony between man-made creations and nature, partly inspired by elements of japanese architecture. 

this is best exemplified by his most well known work: the kaufmann residence, also known as fallingwater. the house is built right above a waterfall, in the middle of a forest in pennsylvania. he also was responsible for the creation of other important buildings, like the guggenheim museum in new york.

one would assume the song is an homage to the architect, recorded ten years after his passing in 1959.

except, no. it absolutely is not. 

in fact, it has so nothing to do with frank lloyd wright that the entirety of the above section is the result of a surface level wikipedia read (please don't use me as a source). 

according to paul simon, art garfunkel wanted him to write a song about frank lloyd wright since, as an architecture major, he was a fan of his work. but, much like me, paul didn't know a thing about the man. so while the song is adressed to him, it's not really about him. instead, the duo, lead by art, sing in harmony about endless laughter and harmonies that no longer exist, of the bond between the narrator and frank lloyd wright weakening sooner than expected. so soon, so soon.

the gentle guitar melody of the beginning is then joined by percussion and string, but proceeds to dissolve into a solo lead by a meandering flute as the violins get farther and farther away.

a voice in the distance says "so long, artie!" so long, so long. 

the instrumental fades away slowly, like a distant memory. 

and that's what it is really about. the fragility of human connection, the way in which we hold people and moments close in our minds, fondly remembering even when we can see the relationship withering away into nothingness, because sometimes we still love them even when we know it's just not the same anymore.

the narrator is not angry about losing frank lloyd wright. he is not resigned either. he has come to terms with the fact that "all of the nights [they]'d harmonize till dawn" are far behind them. he knows it's happening and acts upon it by choosing to remember the good parts and most importantly, by letting go. all of it, encapsulated in very few words, some repeated over and over.

bridge over troubled water, released in 1970, is the last album simon and garfunkel ever made as a duo. they have reunited later for live shows and what not, but at the time they weren't getting along. as a matter of fact, their friendship has continued to be rocky throughout the years. so no, this song is not an homage to frank lloyd wright. but it is an homage to paul simon and art garfunkels relationship, a eulogy to their work together. a goodbye. 

i think i have a hard time with goodbyes. or rather, i have a hard time saying goodbye to relationships that don't end with a tornado, but with a gust of wind blowing us away from eachother. when i hear this song,  i remember the people i no longer have anything in common with. the people i let go of, and the people that let go of me. and while before, the memory of them would've made me regretful in some way or another, i now find something more akin to acceptance.

so while it may not be objectively (whatever that means) the best simon and garfunkel song of all time, i don't care! it gets to me in a very specific way. if you haven't heard it, please do. you may not feel the same way i do about it, but i hope you can at least understand where i'm coming from a bit better.