Horse 3417 - THE PEOPLE v PAUL McCARTNEY [2024] - Judgement

The Fake Internet Court of Australia

THE PEOPLE v PAUL McCARTNEY [2024] - Judgement

H3417/1

It has come to this fake internet court's attention (and definitely not for the first time) that the decisions of a certain Paul McCartney of Liverpool, have resulted in untold suffering and dismay for roughly one twelfth of the year; starting on or about the last Friday in November (owing to the existence of the United States' Public Holiday of Thanksgiving). Starting in late November, across radios and shop tannoys all over the world, this terrible horrorshow beings with the simple noise of:

wob wob wob wob wob wob wob wob

wob wob wob wob wob wob wob wob

wob wob wob wob wob wob wob wob

wob wob wob wob wob wob wob wob

Oh no. It has begun.

These are the facts as this court sees them:

The terrible horror which is unleashed on the world every year, as shop decorations change from orange and black, to brown, to red and green, is one dastardly component of the soundtrack of the season. That terrible horror which has been unchained and allowed to roam the world like an unthinking beast, every year since 1979, is "Wonderful Christmastime".

It might have started out as an innocent song, as Paul McCartney having rocked the world in The Beatles, then quietly put it to sleep again with Wings, then decided to branch out on his own and release a solo career and music therein into the world.  

Sure, the song of itself isn't a bad thing, but it isn't particularly a great thing either. Unlike playing Whamageddon in which one tries to avoid listening to Wham's "Last Christmas", or the yearly defrosting of Mariah Carey's "All I Want For Christmas Is You", "Wonderful Christmastime" arrives on radios and tannoys for three and a bit minutes of mind-bending, soul-sucking, spirit-crushing nonsense before going away again. "Last Christmas" is like trying to eat a kumquat. "All I Want For Christmas Is You" is a yearly does of ear diabetes. "Wonderful Christmastime" is the equivalent of eating mashed suede.

The mood is right.

The spirit's up.

We're here tonight,

And that's enough.

This is first verse; which is lyrically as impressive as an average first grader's story in a creative writing class. You might be impressed if this was a child in kindergarten, but if a first grader submitted this, you would seriously consider whether even they had put in the effort. 

The second verse is worse than the first and is such a curse that I want to burst:

The party's on.

The feeling's here,

That only comes,

This time of year.

Four lines of rhyming verse like this, if it appeared in a greeting card, would rightly be seen as drivel and dross. I will even go so far as to say that this kind of drivel is more offensive than outright offense or abuse as it insults both the intelligence of the sender and the recipient of the greeting card. This however, is not in a greeting card but a song; which gets wheeled out every single year. We know that Mr McCartney is better at producing songs than this.  We know that Mr McCartney is better at writing better lyrics than this. Maybe if this was a Roud folk song we might deign to forgive it but the fact that this was a song which was put out for commercial consumption, just pounds my mental hazelnuts into paste and then folds through Castrol TTS two-stoke additive. The result is unpalatable. 

This is same chap who brought you such things as "Love Me Do", "I Saw Her Standing There", "Blackbird" and "Yesterday" with the Beatles. Granted that I think that the useful catalogue of Beatles songs nominally ends with the end of the Revolver album, that still doesn't change the fact that Mr McCartney was talented way beyond compare. Then with Wings and when the first one said to the second one there "I hope you're having fun", we should have realised that his career and body of work had peaked and was kind of dribbling out. That's fine. There is no shame in being one half of the writing duo from arguably the most successful band of all-time. However, likely due to his name and the supposition that it alone would sell records, "Wonderful Christmastime" was not only approved and pressed and sold.

Judgement:

In considering what kind of judgement is to be handed down, one must first consider what kind of crime has been committed. The punishment should be commensurate to the crime perpetrated. This fake internet court, although being fake, still believes in the principle of equity. 

This court had to consider the possibility that in exchange for being part of the most successful band of all-time, that Paul McCartney must have sold his soul to the Devil. The Devil apparently thinks himself something of a fine musician but keeps on losing in head-to-head contests. Even when the Devil went down to Georgia and demanded to challenge some Johnny to a fiddle contest, or for two chaps to play the best song in the world, his failure was eminent. However, when one considers the absolute dross that Mr McCartney has released in addition to some of the funnest pop songs of all, we have to admit that this is not the work of the Devil, and to be perfectly honest, "Wonderful Christmastime" is not so nefarious that it is diabolical. It is just bad.

Normally this court would make orders of instruction but in this case, it is likely impossible to undo the psychic damage which has been allowed to take place. Unless one is able to tightly control terms of copyright like George Lucas has done, once the bird has been released it is practically impossible to recapture it again. This fake internet court is unable to make any meaningful judgement.

But this does not change the fact that you Paul McCartney, are guilty of both psychic negligence and culpable moral hazard. You have brought hateration and holleration into this fake internet court and as the nature of this malfeasance is such that we can not act, then all we can do is point the pointing finger of shame at you and hope that you think about what you have done .

If we ever see you back before this court, the penalties will be severe. Get out; lest you make a mockery of my courtroom. We are already perfectly capable of making a mockery of this fake internet courtroom as it is. You are malevolent and have now ensnared others in your villainy. Can you not see what trouble thou hast wrought? 

- ROLLO75 J 

(this case will be reported in FLIR as H3417/1

Horse 3416 - From Korean Drinking Game To The Premier League

"How" in this case is the form following the function of "what", and "what" this is, is a story which involves several links in the chain. So then, we shall start at the end and work our way backwards.

Liverpool 2 - Manchester City 0

Gakpo - 21'

Salah - 78' (pen)

2-0 is a fairly routine scoreline in a football match. 2-0 is a scoreline which seems comfortable and normal for a side which is in the ascendancy and which is at the top of its game. But when Mo Salah slotted (pun intended) away the penalty in the 78th minute against Manchester City on Sunday which is the side who by rights should be kicking all and sundry to the kerb, 2-0 suddenly looks dangerous. This 2-0 scoreline gave Liverpool 3 points and sent them 9 points clear at the top of the table. This 2-0 scoreline is immediate cause for abject fear in everyone else in the chasing pack.

However when the crowd erupted after Mo Salah's penalty and started singing, the radio commentary team at BBC Radio Merseyside were obviously confused as they couldn't understand what was being sung. I however instantly recognised the tune as I have heard it on the bus, on either 2Day FM or MIX FM. If a song has found its way from the hit parade into the songbook of football fans, then this has the potential to be something which lasts way longer than just a passing fad. Just occasionally, something from the passing parade of pop songs, has the potential to last as long as "Go West" by the Village People, or maybe even "I'm Forever Blowing Bubbles" by John Kellette.

The lyrics as sing by the Kop at Anfield are:

Mo Salah, Mo Salah,

Mo Salah, Mo Salah,

Mo Salah, Mo Salah,

Uh uh-huh, uh-huh.

Which in principle tells you nothing about the song in question. The original song in question is "APT" by Rose and Bruno Mars; which makes it unclear about whether or not this song should be classified as a K-Pop song or not. A glance at the lyric video for the song, tells you instantly what Rose and Bruno Mars were singing about in the first place.

The chant in the original song, and the reason why it is so transferrable (a bit like "Oh Mickey, you're so fine") is as equally earwormy and also why it shot to the top of the charts in Korea, Australia, New Zealand, and the UK.

Apateu, Apateu,

Apateu, Apateu,

Apateu, Apateu,

Uh uh-huh, uh-huh.

"Apateu" is a the loanword in Korean for "Apartment" and finds equivalents in Japanese and some dialects of Chinese. However even then, we are still no closer to working out why anyone would be singing this.

"Apateu" is actually a drinking game. The rules are simple. Several people in an apartment (presumably) put their hands into a big pile-up in the centre of the group. Someone calls out a number; then people take their hand from the bottom of the pile and place it on the top. When the nth hand has been placed on the top of the pile, that person wins/loses and must drink from whatever the thing in question is (apply other rules as necessary).

And that's it really. No really, the story is that simple. It still doesn't explain why the crowd of an English Premier League club, is stealing the tune from a K-Pop song for remanufacture with its own words though.

Football crowds have been stealing songs from everywhere, nominally since the 1950s. Legend has it that the first song ever sung by a football crowd, spontaneously by the crowd rather than just as a formal thing like a national anthem or "Abide With Me" which has been sung at every FA Cup Final since 1927 (Arsenal and Cardiff City; originally at the behest of King George V), was "Yes, We Have No Bananas" by a Liverpool crown in 1959, while they were trying to get rid of a brass band playing at half time, by drowning it out. 

Liverpool famously has "You'll Never Walk Alone" across both the Shankly Gates and the top of its full crest; which was take from Gerry And The Pacemakers' version of the song from 1963; which itself is taken from the 1945 Rogers And Hammerstein musical "Carousel" and is sung to a widow after her husband committed suicide following a botched robbery.

The fact that a Liverpool crowd should steal a song from K-Pop, is in the grand scheme of more than six decades of football songs, entirely expected. The fact that BBC Radio Merseyside has no idea what the song was or where it came from, is also entirely expected though perhaps if they'd listened to Radio 1, they would have been informed. The fact that I knew the song, and am questioning about whether I knew about this song because I was once a spry 20-something, has me wondering about the nature of reality. 

Is this central chant which has now escaped into football crowds something new, or did this actually exist 20 years ago or more? Did Rose actually write this, or was this already old? Is this new and have I therefore gaslight myself into thinking that this always existed? Why can I not get this out of my head now? Am I doomed to forever have this rattle around in my head like the song "Bananaphone" by Raffi? Or does APT just die a natural death on the terraces and get consigned to the dustbin of history? Who knows?

What we do know is that this weekend, it got real weird real quick. Anfield went K-Pop.