Paul McCartney & Nirvana

In one of those bizarre and unforseeable titans-clashing musical events, Paul McCartney linked up with the surviving members of Nirvana, reunited for the occasion, to play a few songs at last week’s 12-12-12 Hurricane Sandy relief show. Among those songs was a hearteningly ass-whomping new one called “Cut Me Some Slack,” which will show up on the soundtrack to Dave Grohl’s forthcoming Nirvana documentary Sound City. And this weekend, the studio version of the song emerged online. Meanwhile, McCartney served as musical guest on Saturday Night Live, and he brought the Nirvana trio with him to blast the song out again. Check out the studio and SNL versions of the song below.

(via the Audio Perv)

The Sound City soundtrack is out 3/12, but the studio version of “Cut Me Some Slack” is out now on iTunes.

Comments (35)
  1. Paul McCartney’s scream is my favorite scream.

  2. this not a nirvana documentary

  3. Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see

  4. I know I’m going to get downvoted into oblivion for this…

    I like Paul McCartney. I actually really, really like his vocals on this. I think the idea of these people playing together is cool as fuck. But I dunno. This song just bores me. As great as the collaboration and the performances are… it’s a dude yelling “mamma” in a grizzled voice, over the same power chord for four minutes. Throw in some aimless noodling slide guitar for good measure. If someone said “write a derivative, classic 70′s Americana rock song in fifteen minutes” you’d come up with equal or better than yelling “mamma set me free” over a power chord. There’s no build, no tension, no payoff, no lyrics, nothing interesting musically for me.

    As exciting as this group is on paper, this song makes me want to quit after about 45 seconds.

    • What I’m trying to say is, a song is a blank slate when you start. There’s nothing there. Use your four minutes or whatever to do something, say something, be something interesting. Flip an idea on its head. Why stuff it with filler? It’s a waste. I feel the same way about this stuff as I did about the Crooked Vultures collaboration.

      • For instance – the opening riff, just those few notes. Anyone who has ever picked up a guitar for ten minutes has written this song before, because these are like the easiest notes to play and are right next to each other. It’s very uninspired, instantly recognizable and almost cringe-worthy for anyone who plays.

        • so if a song’s easy to play, the notes are near each other on a fretboard, then it sucks. let me then list for you a couple songs that by your definition, suck: Satisfaction and Daytripper.

    • I’m pretty sure that the song is a product of a jam session. That doesn’t excuse any weaknesses, “Helter Skelter” was also the product of a jam session. But considering that it was probably shaped together quickly, by a bunch of guys who hadn’t played together regularly for close to two decades, with another guy who had never played with the other guys… well, there’s a reason it isn’t “Helter Skelter.” But just because something is frivilous doesn’t mean that it can’t be interesting or fun. You’d probably have a better time with the tune if you didn’t interpose the qualative standards of an actual song. But maybe that’s just one of the remaining vestiges of my jam-band worshipping teen years shining through.

      Anyways, I upvoted you even though I disagreed because your arguments were cogent and reasonably put.

    • no build, no tension, no payoff, blah blah blah. this is not a mumford and sons song that slows down to a picked guitar only to roar back so you can “feel” something. what if this song is just 4 1/2 minutes of rock and roll? the man was in the beatles…we know he can write a song. what if this is his way of “saying something”?

      • “What if this song is just 4 1/2 minutes of rock and roll” <– I don't like when people use the phrase "just rock and roll" because it makes rock and roll sound so tired and boring. A vamp on the same chord, with some superfluous aimless guitar for five minutes. That's not what rock is to me.

        Build, tension and payoff is just good songwriting. Yeah not EVERY song has to be structured that way. It doesn't have to be mumford and sons or whatever – I probably wouldn't know a mumford and sons song if it sack tapped me, I don't know that I've ever heard one. But look at something like The Shape of Punk to Come by Refused – so many of those songs are impeccably executed in terms of structure and tension, and they also melt your face.

        I'm by no means an avid McCartney listener but I've heard enough of his music to know he's capable of saying much more interesting things with his music. "We know he can write a song…" okay so yes, Mr. McCartney we know you can write a song, so stop writing songs and just give us that mediocrity we've been craving. I don't understand your comment.

  5. Woah woah woah people, I don’t know why, but I feel like we could stand to cut Paul some slack.

  6. Good grief this song is painful down to the last scream. But I’m thinking maybe it is aimed to appeal to older generations since they have more money to donate. In general most young people don’t have as much in the bank. None of these guys are dummies.

  7. this song is fucking boring.

  8. Every copy of this should be rounded up and buried in a pit in the desert, ET video game style.
    And then said pit should be shot into the Sun.

  9. No he was too busy spinning in his grave.

  10. They only played one song together for the 12.12.12 concert.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post, reply to, or rate a comment.

%s1 / %s2