PAUL McCARTNEY
"We're open tonight for fun, so bring all your friends, come on"
General Rating: 4
ALBUM REVIEWS:
HIT PACKAGES
VIDEOS
Disclaimer: this page is not written by from the point of view of a Paul McCartney fanatic and is not generally intended for narrow-perspective Paul McCartney fanatics. If you are deeply offended by criticism, non-worshipping approach to your favourite artist, or opinions that do not match your own, do not read any further. If you are not, please consult the guidelines for sending your comments before doing so.
This page also hosts comments from the following Certified Commentators: Jeff Blehar, Ben Greenstein, Sergey Zhilkin.
Paul's musical output has surpassed his Beatles legacy in the terms
of quantity, but not of quality... wait, that's the rub. There is a myth
in among the world's population, and that myth is as follows: Paul was
great as a Beatle, but his solo stuff sucks. This myth seems to be shared
by everybody, starting with people who hate the Beatles and ending
with 'serious' critics who waste half of their lives trying to convince
their readers that Paul's solo work lacks 'substance' and is pretty lightweight
as compared to his days in the Beatles.
The myth is, of course, easy to accept. First, many people simply do not
want to waste their time hunting for Paul's albums. They are happy
enough with their Beatles collection and prefer to ignore McCartney's solo
material because they don't have the will, the cash, the time or the guts
to assemble a second collection. To justify this, they readily accept the
myth. Second, 'solo' artists in general aren't really that respected in
this world of ours, especially if they come from formerly successful and
highly praised bands: a misconception, but so it is. Third, there are ageist
problems: some people dismiss everything a certain rock artist has written
after thirty simply because, well, simply because he's thirty years old.
Fourth, many people are only acquainted with some of his sappier stuff
that regularly comes on the radio - like 'My Love' or 'Silly Love Songs'
- and, quite naturally, make the assumption that he's 'too sappy'. Bah.
It is, however, obvious, that once one really considers the strong and
weak sides of the myth, it can't help but be shattered to pieces. Of course,
Paul's solo work can't help being inferior to the Beatles' material, but
for one reason and one reason only: solo Paul has no John, George, or Ringo
to contribute their material as well. This way, the principle of 'selection'
doesn't really work: while in the Sixties only the best contributions of
the band were accepted onto the albums - compositions that all, or most
band members, were in agreement about - in the Seventies and later on Paul
had no-one to control him (unless, of course, you want to count Linda or
Denny Laine, but I wouldn't do that if I were you).
On the other hand, if you take any amount of later-day Beatles albums -
Abbey Road, The Beatles, whatever - and select all the McCartney
tracks, I don't really see how this stuff could be significantly better
than any selected amount of Paul's best solo period (sometime in between
1970-79). Throughout the Seventies, Paul had been working on exactly the
same formula, if his output can really be called 'formulaic': it's so diverse,
varied and often experimental that it mostly defies classification. I'm
perfectly aware that there are people who even despise Macca's work
with the Beatles, especially 'lightweight' stuff like 'Maxwell's Silver
Hammer' or 'Honey Pie' or 'Martha My Dear'; however, any person who enjoys
these songs, but closes his eyes on Paul's solo albums like Ram
or Band On The Run, is either deeply strange or simply let himself
get too deeply engulfed in the myth I have described above.
The first period of Paul's solo career, in fact, made him succeed where
his colleagues could not: after the euphoria caused by Lennon's Plastic
Ono Band and Harrison's All Things Must Pass had died down,
Paul suddenly found himself the only Beatle who could still enjoy an almost
unlimited commercial success, with albums going platinum and constant Top
Ten singles and stuff. The critics initially hated his output - they were
still convinced he was to blame for ruining the Beatles - but the public
didn't give a damn, and its tastes in the early Seventies were civilized
enough to recognize that Paul's talent wasn't yet starting to wane. After
Band On The Run, though, Paul got the long-awaited critical acclaim
at last and spent the next two or three years basking in the glow of his
newly-found fame: believe it or not, he was almost as big as Led Zeppelin,
and weren't Led Zep the Beatles of the Seventies (commercial-wise, that
is)?
Paul's Seventies output is extremely interesting: always diverse, always
melodic, rarely banal, and, of course, plenty of various moods and hooks.
If you're new to Paul, do not make the mistake of dismissing him as 'too
sappy' or 'too sentimental'. True, his work has never been as pure-hearted
and sincere as John's moving, autobiographical compositions; and if you're
looking forward to finding something about the meaning of life, go away.
Paul's work is primarily destined for entertainment - sometimes funny,
sometimes silly, sometimes slightly sad, without any deep sense to it.
But who needs deep sense when you have these flawless melodies and albums
stuffed to the brim with inventive, impeccable musical ideas? And, while
balladry does play a significant part in Paul's career, it's usually compensated
with multiple forays into other genres: country, blues, boogie-woogie,
pop rock, bluegrass, even heavy metal on occasion. If you're still in doubt,
pick up some of his more rockin' stuff like Venus And Mars or Back
To The Egg and see for yourself.
Of course, Paul started fizzling out in the Eighties - but hey, who hasn't?
I can hardly think of a dinosaur whose Eighties' output would live up to
the regular standard... He started fiddling around with electronica and
dance music, starred in an unsuccessful movie, made all kinds of stupidities
before finally emerging from his mid-life crisis and starting a comeback
in the late Eighties with Flowers In The Dirt. Unfortunately, the
late Nineties finally seem to have squeezed the last drops of talent out
of him, and the recent death of Linda McCartney has been hard on him, too.
But that doesn't mean you have to judge him by his current washed-upness:
take a general look, woncha? No Beatles' collection is complete without
at least a good handful of Paul's Seventies' albums, and hey! George Starostin's
website is just what you need - come, take a look and let me guide you
through Macca's sea of long players! (Don't take it too seriously, though).
For the record: Paul's entire catalogue has been recently re-issued. You
might have seen these reissues - the little discs with white album covers
and the original sleeve in absolutely diminutive form so that you have
to use a magnifying glass or something. The good thing is that most of
them include (sometimes) cool bonus tracks. This doesn't liberate you from
the necessity to buy Wings Greatest if you're a completist, but
at least it can save you some time looking for the more obscure songs.
General Evaluation:
Listenability: 5+/5. Basically
everything that this guy puts out is listenable - come on, we need to forgive
him the few sordid gaffes of the Eighties (nobody passed on that) - and
most of the time, loaded with hooks.
Resonance: 3/5. Contrary to
rumour, Paul is not a 'fake' guy: he really believes in his ballads, and
there are plenty of tear-inducing moments in his solo career. But yes,
he's not a very convincing rocker (although a darn good one nevertheless).
Originality: 2/5. Much of the
Seventies' stuff is pretty clever and well thought-out, but very rarely
'innovative' as such.
Adequacy: 4/5. Paul can be nauseating,
particularly in the latter period when he started putting out pretty lame
'universalist' anthems, but most of the time, he's totally adequate.
Overall: 3.5+ = *
* * * on the rating scale.
What do YOU think about Paul McCartney? Mail your ideas
Your worthy comments:
<[email protected]> (26.05.99)
Of the three main Beatles solo artists-(excluding Ringo) Paul Mc is
my favorite. John's was too sentimental, and George's was too overblown.
Not that they were bad solo artists, it's just that Paul is my fav. He
always kept his style just right. Never overbearing. You're right about
his 80s output though. Blah!!!!
[Special author note: I appreciate
this, of course, but this is the first time I witness somebody calling
John more sentimental than Paul...]
Simon Hearn <[email protected]> (07.09.99)
John was the greatest post beatles artist, no question. Mccartney I want to love as a solo artist, but he produced over blow below average material. This is a shame because he is such a talent. 'Live and let die' and 'another day' stand up, the rest does not. Flaming pie however was a good return to form. Note this was recorded AFTER compling to beatles anthology. Co-incidence - I think not - the magic returned for a brief time.
Jeff Blehar <[email protected]> (08.02.2000)
I've always been a music man rather than a lyrics man. This isn't to
say that I don't care about a good lyric (I most certainly do), but rather
that I first take to a song based on its melodic, textural, or atmospheric
interest, all of which are functions more of the music than of the lyrics
for me. I suppose that's why I really enjoy McCartney's solo output more
than I'm supposed to - I've got the complete works for all four, and while
I think Harrison's All Things Must Pass is easily the best album
by an ex-Beatle, McCartney is more consistently listenable, at least up
until 1982 or so. For the record, I find most of what George says to be
true: McCartney is GRUESOMELY underrated, and that his catalog is a happy
little goldmine to dig through. Yet I'd also like to say that you don't
necessarily have to like McCartney's late-period Beatles output to like
his solo work; I for one heartily dislike "Honey Pie," and I
utterly DESPISE "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" as the single most
atrocious, steaming piece of tripe that McCartney ever foisted upon The
Beatles and a tragic representation of why they broke up (read an account
of the recording of the song in a Beatles chronicle and you'll understand
what I mean by that).
In truth, McCartney's chief sin in the eyes of the rock 'n' roll press
was in being both largely apolitical (no Sometime In New York City's
from Paul, thankfully) and in being more "poppy" than his colleague.
Even though in retrospect these arguments seem to be truly shallow (after
all, John's career shows the danger of mixing politics and pop, to say
nothing of modern snoozes like U2) and petty, I would like to level a serious
criticism at the artist: he's too obsessed with the formal beauties of
music, with genre experiments and style exercises, to the point that he
oftentimes neglects the point entirely that music ought to be the vehicle
for SOME kind of emotional or intellectual expression. Novelty songs are
one thing (and they have their place), and I frankly don't have a problem
with silly love songs unless they're badly executed, but too often McCartney's
fascination with formal musical perfection betrays a shallow commitment
to feelings. That aside, he's very worthwhile as an artist, and compilations
(thus far) simply do not do him justice, as much of his most intriguing
work is nestled away as album tracks or B-sides.
Rich Bunnell <[email protected]> (08.02.2000)
If I hear one more person bashing "Maxwell's Silver Hammer," I will kill him. How can you people not like that melody? It's freakin' awesome!
Jeff Blehar <[email protected]> (09.02.2000)
Ouch, Rich! "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" isn't worth killing anyone over! Because then you'd be no better than Maxwell himself. ;-) Seriously though (although maybe this discussion should be taken to the relevant section of The Beatles page), I think the melody of the song is wonderful, a prime slice of McCartneyesque verticality (i.e., notice how most of Paul's tunes bounce up and down while a lot of John's remain "horizontal," or anchored around a few notes? "Iamheasyouasheasyoume," "Living is easy with eyes closed," etc.). What I'm offended by are the lyrics; ugh! Somewhere on George's Steely Dan page he gets disgusted with their song "Everything You Did," about...well, it's sick. But "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" is too. What makes it worse is the blithe cheeriness of the music, as if bashing in women's skulls with hammers was no problem at all. I'm not an uptight jerk, though, and If that were it alone I guess I'd just cordially dislike it; what makes me HATE it is that McCartney refused to let it go in the studio, much like "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da," forcing John, George and Ringo to expend whatever little good-will they had left towards each other rerecording the song OVER and OVER again, convinced that it could be a single if done right. All sorts of fights broke out, yelling, etc. Thoughtlessly selfish, and all for a silly cause - if it had been "Strawberry Fields Forever" or heck, even "Martha My Dear" they were working on, I wouldn't have minded, but to waste their draining friendship on such a callow trivial song...well that's why I hate it.
<[email protected]> (09.02.2000)
I'm sick and tired of hearing Paul is simply gorgeous, rich and selfish. I think he's really cool. He makes cool music, eats no animals and is my favourite bass player.
Kathleen Keplar <[email protected]> (30.05.2000)
Having already sent a lengthy remark concerning the Beatles to this
site some time ago, I'm forced to be brief here, and that's a difficult
feat for me. I don't like this guy at all, and I've tried my damnedest
to admire him for a long time. Terrific bassist...with the Beatles. Terrific
composer...with the Beatles. Good singer...with the Beatles (This one is
a more often than not thing, after more than half an album's worth of listening
his voice just turns bland to my ears.) Had his moments as a lyricist...again,
with the Beatles. Before I got into playing music he was my favorite Beatle,
but when I learned what it was all about first hand it became Lennon who
held me in awe. McCartney is a performer first, an artist second. A show
off first, a musician second.
With the Beatles he did manage some monumental songs, 'Yesterday', 'Hey
Jude', 'Eleanor Rigby', etc. etc. But most of his songs even then
were mostly show ditties and deliberate toe tappers. Hey, he's good at
it, terrific filler for the in between commercial time on the car radio.
He has been, in the past, a shameless self promoter and a cheap bastard.
A notoriously cheap bastard. Anyone who knows the story of how he ended
up with that first Rickenbacker bass can't argue with that particular opinion
of him. He admits to playing Yamaha equipment these days
because of the 'freebies'. I have a Yamaha 300 Series Precision Bass, because
it was the best I could afford at the time. Come on! This guy's a multi-millionare!
What's a couple thousand US dollars for a top line axe to this
guy? He pissed all over Denny Lane and used him badly during the
heyday of Wings. Last I heard of Denny he was living in a van. But wait...it's
the music we're after here. Right?
He plays more instruments than a dog has fleas. But to the best of my knowledge
the only one he really excels at is the bass. He was the original lead
guitar for the Beatles but kept blowing it. That's probably why he was
such an innovative bassist-he was actually a frustrated lead player. He
was famous with the Beatles for his charm and sense of humor. Anytime I've
seen him in an interview or on stage that charm seems all too forced
and I can detect no real sense of humor at all. Hell of a PR
job in my opinion. I've owned at least half his solo stuff at one time
or another, just couldn't find the truth in it anywhere. Kept the greatest
hits and Band on the Run around, just in case I'm in the mood to
be bland and phony. I sincerely wish I could be more positive about Sir
Paul McCartney but I find it very difficult. He is a master of hook and
melody, I find it a shame he can't seem to use those gifts for more
than pop crap and pseudo-rock. And don't get me started on the late Mrs.
McCartney. I'm honestly sorry she's gone and from what I understand
she was a good person and a real sincere lady, but she was as bad on stage
as Yoko Ono. At least the Japanese Howler Monkey was an artist and was
trying to make some kind of point, as obscure as that point may have been.
I think McCartney needs a strong creative framework to do his best
work. He had it within the framework that was the other three Beatles and
George Martin. On his own he's just more noise coming from the magic box.
Lennon was the organ grinder...McCartney was the monkey.
Damn, I wish I hadn't said that...but it's how I feel it.
[Special author note: Yes. I
am perfectly ready to admit that most of these remarks are completely true.
McCartney writes and sings 'pop crap', he isn't a technical virtuoso, he's
a dirty rich scumbag (and a member of the 'Great Washed-Up Club', too),
he's mean and lean and a big show off.
But I could name LOADS of famous rock stars and musicians who all share
the same defects, and in a worse way, too. As far as I'm concerned, his
absolute mastership of 'hook and melody' is what does it for me, and I
don't need nothing else: he's a genius, and I could care less about the
'ethical' side of the job. If we start judging musicians by how many friends
they pissed off and how they force out their humor in interviews, we might
as well drop out of the whole business for good.]
Andrew Ashby <[email protected]> (14.11.2000)
i think Pual [sic! - G. S.] McCartney sucks....
Teresa Juarez Guzman <[email protected]> (26.11.2000)
McCartney? From "Yesterday" to "Beautiful Night", I've listened to every beautiful composition that he's commited to record. His voice and charms have allowed him to be sentimental but not corny. If you think that McCartney sucks then you surely haven't listened to the final number of the White Album (that is: you don't know what rock music is). That feeling sums up the best efforts from his solo career (to me: Red Rock Speedway, Ram and Band On The Run)... But, going back to the Beatles' tune... (in a whispering voice:) "Good night everybody, everywhere. Good night". Fade out. That's enough to give me the chills, after the mind-blowing "Revolution 9" (another McCartney project!). OK, I'm not an objective reviewer (the exclamation resource), but a fan and a "Macca" completist. So what? Check it out!: Paul McCartney was the most talented member of the best pop music in history. (And surely a very enjoyable solo force.) Maybe his concerts are tiresome, and there's one or two records that I don't care for (Give my regards to Broad Street and Press To Play), but everybody is allowed to suck a little every now and then, and Lennon's fans know what I'm talking about: the Yoko numbers --fillers?-- are not Beatle material exactly. But I'm moving away from my point. Which is? Paul McCartney is "live", and a musical genius.
<[email protected]> (26.11.2000)
I happened across your page recently and I'd like to say I enjoyed it
very much. I have been a McCartney fan since the 70's.
One of the reasons I think that people have a hard time "sinking their
teeth" into Paul's body of solo work isn't because of the dubious
"quality" of the material... it's because of the "diversity"
of the material. I think that a lot of people expect a performer or group
to represent a particular type of music, and have a consistent style of
presentation..
Paul simply does not fit this bill. Only Paul it seems, could put songs
like 'Girls School' and 'Mull Of Kintyre' on the same double-a sided single.
The problem then is, the folks that were attracted to 'Girls School' probably
thought 'Mull Of Kintyre' sucked, and vice-versa. If you liked Led Zepplin,
you could count on a consistent style and a consistent sound from album
to album. Not so with Paul. Just because Band On The Run was a smash,
didn't mean that the next album was going to resemble it even in the tinest
bit. And it didn't. Just look at a sample of three succsesive solo albums...
From Londontown to Back To The Egg to McCartney II
John on the other hand, put out virtually the same album 5 times, but that's
another story.
Sergey Zhilkin <[email protected]> (29.11.2000)
What a strange person Paul is! He tells us that he hates electronic
music but then he produces such things as Press to play. He says
he isn't a money-maker but do you know how many concerts did he hold while
Flowers in the dirts? 43! He said he was a good father but then
Japanese police caught Linda for keeping joint in her bag... But even if
he's Demon in the body of a man we shouldn't care about it - all in all,
we are talking about his music.
The main problem I see about his solo career is that Paul was never frank.
Well, even in 'Ebony & Ivory' I don't see much openess. One may say
that it's my bias towards Paul, but it seems to me that Paul was just keeping
his image of pacifist (though I can't deny that he's pacifist, I just wanted
to say that Paul is freaking out with charity, help towards old people
and USSR (I insist that it's freaking out! If not then explain me why didn't
he visit Russia with couple of concerts when it was possible? (Oh,sorry
sir Paul! I've just found an excusion for you. You said in your interview
that there's always bad weather in Moscow and it's not safe to play on
the stage while it's raining. Well-la, Well-la! Paul, just remember one
thing: there are too many white bears on the streets in Moscow so don't
forget to take your gun from England!))). Paul always looked like good
boy with immaculate hair and crystal voice. THIS is bias! Too many people
think that Paul is a good boy, John was always too revolutionary, George
was too preachy and Ringo was always stupid and agrressive (though, it's
a bias to almost every drummer)! Err, it seems to me that I'm going off
my main point so let's continue.
Another minus of Paul is that he didn't realise when to stop. It's all
because he didn't want to be a 'dinosaur' but , in the end, he is! I like
every album which was produced between 70 and 84 (surely excluding McCartney2)
but then we get too many bad songs. I am 100% assured that Paul understood
that Press to play was crap but, alas, again we face thing called
'money-making'.... His two last live concerts are nothing but money-making
albums, too... I was very glad to know that Flaming pie was made
in 1997 which proves that Paul could still write good music but then we
got Run devil run (well, I like it but it's no doubt that it's a
serious letdown to Pie). Now, in my opinion of course, it's better
for Paul to shut down. His last album wasn't bad (and it even took the
4th place in the charts) and we can easily find an excusion for Run
devil run. Paul, please, say 'goodbye'...
Oh, and here's my last note: I'd give Paul five stars only if he had deleted
McCartney2, Press to play, Tripping the live fantastic,
Paul is live and Run devil run from his catalog. But he didn't
so I suppose that 4 is rather fair mark.
P.S. I've just found out that Paul produced his new album (I don't remember
it's exact name but it's called something like Liverpool school
(or days)). Critics say that it's the brother of Harrison's Electronic
sound... Well, what can I say? I repeat my request: 'Paul, say 'goodbye''!
Year Of Release: 1970
Record rating = 8
Overall rating = 12
A half-finished effort, but with flashes of brilliancy every now
and then.
Best song: MAYBE I'M AMAZED
OK, so, regardless of what I've told you earlier about McCartney's immaculate
style of production, this is one truly sloppy record. Paul rushed off into
the studio somewhere in the spring of 1970 to quickly assemble a record
so that it would come out before Ringo's Sentimental Journey and
all the people would see that it's him taking major decisions among the
Beatles. See what a a heck of a mess the band was in - Paul didn't even
have time to assemble any musicians and had to play all the instruments
himself, thus effectively proving himself to be a Witted Multi-Instrumentalist.
The result is sadly predictable: a lot of songs here aren't really songs
but rather short instrumental links ('Lovely Linda', 'Valentine Day'),
and the number of purely instrumental compositions significantly exceeds
the average on a later McCartney solo record. But Paul is Paul, and his
amazing, at that time perhaps the best in the world sense of melody works
so effectively that most of these links and instrumentals can only be treated
as small overlooked gems. To paraphrase one reverend Zappa critic, 'Valentine
Day' alone packs more personality than an entire Traffic album. It's actually
one and a half minutes of spooky weirdness that's great fun - the ominous
guitar riff, the short oozing bits of lead guitar playing, the unusually
dreary atmosphere for such a cute title, all of these things are just so
groovy... Likewise with the fourty seconds of 'Lovely Linda', perhaps the
best love anthem ever produced by any single Beatle to his lifemate, bar
'Something', of course.
And how come nobody ever recognizes 'Hot As Sun/Glasses' for the dang melodic
classic it is? That main guitar melody it's based on is an allegory of
life itself! So upbeat, so jangly, so catchy, so heartfelt and warm, and
with an experimental second part that is, sure enough, played on glasses.
Okay, deliver me of the second part, but it's still so short it doesn't
matter. 'Momma Miss America'? Again, some pretty spooky music here - sounds
like a lively barroom piano ditty in a minor key, atmospheric and at the
same time substantial - hell, even danceable, although I'd probably
be afraid to dance to it by myself... In fact, the only truly failed experiment
on here is the last track, the somewhat lame drum instrumental 'Kreen -
Akrore'. It does feature a few guitar lines that could have been put to
better use on a better track, but for the most part it's just Paul fooling
around with his drums, probably to prove to everybody he could really play
them. Well, he can, but he ain't no Ginger Baker, and me not impressed.
So just shut your player right before track 13 so as not to spoil a really
perfect listen.
A couple other tracks are 'grooves' - apparently, unfinished 'musical themes'
with bits of lyrics strapped on and hastily arranged so as to fit onto
the record. But who but Paul McCartney would be able to build up an entire
lengthy song on one verse ('That Would Be Something') and manage
to get away with it? Count it as Paul's solo alternative to 'Why Don't
We Do It In The Road', if you wish, only softer and a little bit more inventive,
with 'lip-drum solos' attached as a special bonus. 'Teddy Boy', originally
conceived as a potential Beatles song (you can meet an early take on Anthology
III), is a funny folk ditty with grotesque A. A. Milne-style lyrics
that could have grown into something bigger but eventually didn't; I'm
not a particular fan of the song but I still can't see why some people
hate the song with a strange anti-nazi-type passion.
These are all 'embryonic ideas', though - and the few songs that should
be treated as 'finished product' all belong to the highest category. Well,
after all, how couldn't they? The man was on a roll after Abbey Road;
it's only natural that these songs be at least as powerful as his contributions
for that Beatles album. Sure enough, they are. 'Maybe I'm Amazed' is the
best known song from here, with a gorgeous, absolutely heavenly piano melody
and soaring guitar solos. In the hands of the Beatles it would have undoubtedly
grown to the status of yet another World Anthem of the likes of 'Hey Jude'
or 'Let It Be'; here it sounds a bit too strained and repetitive (after
all, it would have been nicer to come up with a few more verses and diversify
the instrumental passages a bit), but still manages to be a major
classic in the solo McCartney canon, and rightly so.
But if 'Maybe I'm Amazed' is the only song from this album you're acquainted
with, I can but envy you the minutes of pleasure of discovering the other
highlights. 'Junk' is beautiful beyond words - I like to think of it as
something of an 'Eleanor Rigby' with 'lonely junk' replacing 'lonely people',
i.e. with pity for unanimate objects replacing pity for animate ones. Its
instrumental reprise near the end of the album doesn't worry me a single
bit; on the contrary, I can't get enough of that soft, plaintive, heartbreaking
melody. 'Every Night' is a very pretty pop rocker with lovely vocal harmonies,
'lightweight' as it may seem to Beatle fans. I could care less, because
the melody makes me tip my hat and that's that. And I can hardly resist
the jolly pop shuffle 'Man We Was Lonely', with Linda on the choruses,
not to mention the only true rocker on the record, 'Oo You', where Paul
even throws in some distortion to keep the 'arder type of fan happy.
As you can see, apart from 'Kreen - Akrore' I basically like or love every
single track on here. So the only reason I'm giving this an eight (I used
to give it a seven, but I got over that) is that even the more or less
wholesome songs don't always have that 'polished' look McCartney is famous
for, and end up reducing the record to a pleasant lightweight homey listen.
I mean, these songs never conceal anything - you pretty much get
everything on first listen and that's that. Well, what can a poor boy do
if he's all alone in the studio and has got an impatient Ringo Starr on
his neck?
By the way, that Sentimental Journey is a horrid album. Go
figure...
Every night I'm waiting for you to mail your ideas
Your worthy comments:
Josh <[email protected]> (28.07.99)
He sounds happy to make this album, and get away from The Beatles. At times, he sounds like he's having too much fun (a problem that would return for Flaming Pie), such as "Momma Miss America" , and that horrid piece at the end where Paul tries to prove he could play drums. Where's Ringo when you need him? The rest is pretty good though. Not genius or groundbreaking in any way, just fun. "Junk" is such a great song! "Maybe I'm Amazed" was really the only song on here (excpet maybe "Every Night") that would have succeded as a single. I looooove that song!!!! "Oo You" isn't that exciting, but not bad. Same goes for "That Would Be Something." I agree with you also about "Hot As Sun (Glasses)." My rating-8
Cole <[email protected]> (18.08.99)
Gahh! What kind of crap is this? I mean, he made Ram right after -this- album? Hysterics aside, I think he should have spent more time on this and just let Ringo put his album out first. The inane grooves (I can't even begin to list individual song titles) really don't amount to much, but two songs on here are absolutely brilliant: "Junk" has a simply beautiful melody to it, and "Maybe I'm Amazed" is undoubtedly the first solo Paul classic. And... I have to admit, I like the dopey opening track "Lovely Linda". Come to think of it, there are more moments on here than at first I thought. "Singalong Junk", that karaoke version of "Junk", is still absolutely wonderful--I think the Mellotron in there is a nice touch. I have to say, though, that this just isn't the sort of thing that I'd expect from Paul, what with his impeccible production values and such. Five stars, or whatever you call your rating thing.
Mats Fjäll <[email protected]> (28.11.99)
Hmmm...this is a tricky one! It has some great stuff and some really
bad stuff!
At least to the overall-listener, I mean you don't want to hear a drum
solo on a Macca-record, unless you're a huge fan. The good stuff is 'Maybe
I'm Amazed' (wich Paul thinks is his best post-Beatles song) and 'Junk'.
If you're in the mood even 'Teddy Boy' can be nice, all though I like the
version on Beatles Anthology 3 better.
Paul played all the instruments by himself(except for some backin' vocals
from Linda) and it's great to hear that he really can play! There's a lot
of people telling me that the Beatles only made nice melodies, but couldn't
handle their instruments.On this one Macca shows us that he can handle
all the important instruments in pop music! (which he also did on 'Back
in the U.S.S.R' from "the white album") I give McCartney
a 6.
João Vargas <[email protected]> (26.12.99)
This album is, like others Paul would later record, a relaxing record, and not one that you can take too seriously. On 'Maybe I'm Amazed' and 'Every Night', he sounds like he's trying to really make an album. In other places, like 'Hot As Sun', 'The Lovely Linda', and 'Man We Was Lonely', he does some nice melodies. But in many places, he ends up sounding like there's something missing ('Valentine's Day' and 'Oo-You'). 'Kreen-Akrore' is terrible, and 'Teddy Boy' is pretty forgettable. The Anthology version is defintely better. I'd give this album a 6.
Jeff Blehar <[email protected]> (08.02.2000)
Paul McCartney does his version of Lennon's The Wedding Album;
equally impromptu but thankfully quite a bit more melodic and listenable.
This one has been on the receiving end of quite a bit of critical nastiness
over the years, perhaps because people expected a more sweeping statement
from a primary Beatle's first full-fledged solo album. (It certainly doesn't
compare to John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band or All Things Must Pass;
on the other hand, it blows Sentimental Journey all to hell.) However,
time has been very kind to this one, and I for one find it a really enjoyable,
if slight work. Sure those instrumentals are somewhat superfluous, but
if we can enjoy Dylan's "Nashville Skyline Rag" and "Wig-wam"
(which we can) we can enjoy "Momma Miss America" and the interesting
experiment "Hot As Sun/Glasses," the second half of which is
made by playing just that - glasses. (Also, there's an uncredited bit at
the end there of an otherwise unreleased McCartney song, "Suicide"
- the edit is seemingly random and the song is almost incomphrensible,
which makes for a nice air of mysteriousness.)
As for the songs, they're almost all catchy, melodic, if ultimately inessential
tracks. "Oo You" positively grooves, while "Junk" is
charming and spooky nonsense. Of all the lyrica songs, only "Teddy
Boy" is trash - The Beatles were right to reject this one, and John
Lennon gave it lack of respect it richly deserved (as heard on Anthology
3) by calling out square-dance steps to it. "Every Night"
is quite a strong little song in this context, and "Maybe I'm Amazed"
is possibly, after all these years, still McCartney's finest tribute to
Linda. The most impressive aspect of "Maybe I'm Amazed" is the
fact that it achieves a fairly tight ensemble groove, despite the fact
that McCartney of course played all the instruments and overdubbed each
separately. For an "assembled" recording, it sounds convincingly
"real." While nothing else on the album really compares to that
one (and while the track "Kreen Akrore" is a waste of tape),
this album has a warm, laid-back feel to it that works much more successfully
than the later Wings Wild Life does. I'll give it a 7/10 (or an
11/15) and recommend it with caution: don't come to this for a purely musical
experience, as its charms have more to do with the mood it evokes than
any compositional showmanship.
Darren Bowers <[email protected]> (17.06.2000)
With all of this albums short comings, it's still a very underestimated album. It's just painful to listen to these songs and seeing that they could have been polished and ended up on the next Beatles album. It sounds like these songs are brain storms of what was going to come next from Pauls input into the band. Due to the unforeseen circumstances, and the tribulation between the fab four which eventually led to them breaking up, these songs ended up on a solo project which paul recorded at his home studio. Basically Paul was very devastated about the break up and recorded this album to keep himself busy and to heal. This was at the lowest point in Paul's life. He was very depressed and feeling helpless after the Beatles dissolved. He needed something to bring him through all the nasty mess he ws going through. although there is a lot of filler, but not bad filler, there are some gems which hold up the rest of the record. Highlights would include "That would be something", "Every night," Teddy boy," and the awesome "Baby I'm amazed." The rest of the album is just charming but slight. The biggest credit on this album is that it's a one man band. Paul basically played every instrument by himself on the album. Best out of ten. I would give this album 7 1/2 for effort. It could have been a classic with maybe two or three more focused songs. It's hard to watch him fall from the olympic heights of the Beatles, but it wasn't that far of a fall. Although he would never musically achieve his greatness oh the Beatles again, his solo career is still engaging. He came pretty darn close a few times in reaching those dizzying heights, but never quit made it.
<[email protected]> (02.08.2000)
It's hard for me to assess the merits of this album, since it's been
in my family since it was first released (right before I turned 7). At
that time, I just wanted to hear catchy melodies, and this album provided
those in abundance. It also seems to have a cozy rural quality that I find
appealing. And it's also notably Beatlesque. So I still enjoy hearing it,
what with all of its nostalgic significance.
However, if I take a purely critical view of it, I tend to walk away thinking
that the album is generally disposable. Sure, there's a few really decent
tunes here ('Maybe I'm Amazed', 'Junk', 'Every Night'), but there are just
as many - if not more - mediocre songs ('That Would Be Something', 'Teddy
Boy', 'Oo You', 'Man We Was Lonely') - and that's including only the full-fledged
songs! I haven't even gotten to the ditties and instrumentals! Not that
these more mediocre tracks are bad - each one is enjoyable to some extent
- they just aren't up to the standards that Beatles fans expected in 1970.
And, well, they're not up to the standards of most really good rock artists
- people that I would think should have included Paul McCartney.
Oh, and the ditties and instrumentals? I actually like some of those. In
fact, I really enjoy listening to 'Kreen-Akrore'. (I'm the only one on
the planet, aren't I?) It isn't so much that Paul's drumming is bad (it's
not great, but he plays them pretty well here) - it's that they're produced
so badly. It sounds like he's playing cardboard boxes. The bottom line,
though, is that Paul's drum 'solo' is creative, if not technically impressive.
It's unexpected. And the instrumental accompaniment is effective. Most
of the other instrumentals are enjoyable, but that's about as much as I
feel like talking about them.
This is definitely not something to take to the proverbial desert-island,
but it's OK. Especially if you forget that this guy had just finished being
one of the two main creative forces behind the Beatles.
m.miller1 <[email protected]> (07.12.2000)
In my opinion 'Maybe Im Amazed' is the best composition by any of the
beatles, both pre and post the break up. The mind absolutely boggles as
to how it has been neglected by the general public and beatles fans in
general for the last 30 years.
In my opinion, the fact that this song gets such little recognition is
the perfect example to demonstrate the way pauls songs are unfairly ignored
and dismissed as sentimental pap.
The album as a whole I find has many parrallels with lennons plastic
ono band. Both are the ultimate statements from two of the most successful
songwriters ever, both demonstrate perfectly their complementary talents,
(Pauls gift of melody and his talent as a multi-instrumentalist, and Johns
ability to convey his most personal feelings with remarkably raw emotion
and honesty), and both are deliberate moves to get away from the highly
produced Beatles sound.
To me the album has an incredibly warm sound to it, and though much of
it is little more than a musical doodle, I find there is much to be admired.
I initially thought he was nuts, putting so many instrumentals on his first
solo record, but it now seems like an obvious choice. Every one was expecting
paul to produce an over blown album of grand stature, high production values,
and epic melodies, instead he did the reverse - to me that is the mark
of a truly sincere artist and musical talent.
'Every Night', the beautiful 'Junk' ( a message Im sure many people have
neglected the importance of), 'Teddy Boy' ( Im sure this one is about
John), and the 'why dont we do it in the road' sequel 'That would be something' are
the other standouts on the album, along with the instrumental 'Hot As Sun'.
Commercially this could have benefited from the inclusion of something
like his demo of 'Come & Get It' (Anthology 3), from the same
period I think it would have added a little bit more listenability value
to it, but other than that, i wouldnt have wanted anything more from his
first solo effort.
Many called Plastic Ono Band the first "confessional"
rock record. McCartney was apparently the first rock record to be written
produced, arranged and performed by one artist, beating Stevie Wonder by
a year. [Actually, the first rock record to be released
by one artist - Roy Wood had his first solo record, where he wrote, played
and arranged everything, recorded a year before; unfortunately, it didn't
come out until 1973 - G.S.].
Year Of Release: 1971
Record rating = 10
Overall rating = 14
Moving, charming and musically superb. Most of the songs are prime
Beatles-quality.
Best song: hard to determine, they're all great.
Second time 'round, and lo! what a wonderful effort. This time around
Paul has got a professional drummer (Denny Seiwell) and his wife (Linda
McCartney, if you're not informed) to help him with the playing, so there
are no significant problems with songs being underarranged or something.
Actually, just for fun, the album is credited to 'Paul & Linda McCartney'
- evil tongues say that Paul only did this to earn more money from the
record company, and they were even sued by some record company executives
or managers who wanted Linda to prove her composing skills, heh, heh...
in any case, she probably did prove something, because the family won the
lawsuit. Oh well.
Some songs on here do feel a little bit thin when it comes to full-fledged
arrangements, but it's certainly less of a throwaway than before: thin
or thick, all of the songs are finished products. Hey, what's that I said?
This is a great album! All the songs display a great songwriting talent
- a talent equal to that of one of the Beatles, indeed! How could this
guy write just as well as Paul McCartney of Beatles' fame? Oh, see, lots
of people usually forget that this is Paul McCartney of Beatles'
fame. They usually treat him as a separate Paul McCartney, and that's where
the problem lies.
Anyway, there are lots of fantastic musical ideas displayed all through
this record. Ram is, in fact, the ideal place to start with Paul
if you're looking for something relatively calm, stripped down and cozy:
whereas later on Paul would incorporate a lot of bombast into his work,
especially in the mid-Seventies when he was successfully posturing as a
glammy stadium-rocker, on Ram he simply plays the part of a humble
little farmer - just look at him handling the ram on the front cover! (Which,
was, by the way, later parodied by John on the back cover of Imagine,
where he was holding a fat pig by the ears). If there is a theme
underlying the album, it's the theme of 'quiet silly little fun': Paul
sings about the advantages of living in the country, the fussiness of big
city life, the pure delights of family life and the innocent pleasures
of teenage days. All of this is, of course, drenched in his usual 'nonsensic'
approach and heavily spiced with moments of sheer delirium, but that doesn't
make the album any less entertaining - on the contrary, I adore
this delirium. And isn't delirium the highest form of art, by the way?
Let's run around, then. First of all, for those who doubted it, Paul shows
us that he can still pull off a mean funny rocker: the groovy 'Smile Away'
with its famous line 'well I can smell your feet a mile away - smile away!'
is just the thing for you, based on a gruff, dirty, smelly (yeah) little
riff and graced by stingy, exciting guitar solos, plus the doo-wop harmonies
borrowed from another age. From another age also comes the wonderful Beach
Boys-like retro harmony number 'The Back Seat Of My Car', a perfect ode
for all the little dudes and doves. From the recently passed age we have
the terrific psychedelic brain-muddler 'Monkberry Moon Delight' - the song
would have easily fit on Magical Mystery Tour, if only for the fact
that not a single line in the verses ever makes sense. But who wants sense
when one gets a magnificent vocal melody instead, not to mention the guy
almost throwing a fit as he keeps repeating the title of the song over
and over in some mantraic trance - almost like Harrison repeating 'Hare
Krishna' in 'My Sweet Lord'? Isn't that absolutely, totally hilarious?
Practically everything on here rules, yes, even including the Twenties-inspired
comic number 'Three Legs' (lots of critics thought it was about the lame
fate of the band, but that's at least arguable). No matter that these songs
sound so 'home-made': it only makes them closer to you. Where does he get
those brilliant melodies? Like, for example, the slightly sad, but bouncy
acoustic riff of the title track? Or the sharp, mercilessly pounding piano
chords of 'Dear Boy'? Or the jolly Mellotron (don't tell me it's a real
trumpet) cookie in 'Admiral Halsey'? Or the catchy happy lines of 'Eat
At Home'? Did he really think of all of them himself?
The two songs, however, that come close to being the greatest on this album
are the two side-openers. 'Too Many People' has some great lyrics, an unforgettable
hook in each verse, and one of the best codas to a Paul song: if you haven't
heard that frantic guitar solo at the end, or the way it suddenly transforms
itself into a lot of overdubbed 'stinging' acoustic guitars, you don't
know nothing about Paul at all. And 'Heart Of The Country' may be silly
and lightweight, but I deem it a logical successor of 'Mother Nature's
Son', only in a more funny context. I don't give a damn about what that
song really meant for Paul (about finally settling down and solving his
old-time problems, probably), but it sure means a lot for me, and don't
you dare write it off as stupid pop crap! It's an epochal song. And don't
forget the wonderful pop suite of 'Long Haired Lady' which sounds like
one of the most gentle and mysterious love ballads I've ever heard. Sounds
very Brit-flavoured, too. Who's that long-haired lady? Is it Linda McCartney
or the Queen of May?
So, you probably already understood that this is my favourite McCartney
album. Indeed, I prefer it even to such a highly-acclaimed album as Band
On The Run, just because it's so home-made and fresh and delicious,
and also because lots of these cool tunes could have easily made their
way onto The Beatles or Abbey Road or anywhere like that.
And let me tell you this: I totally and absolutely despise even the slightest
effort to dismiss the album as 'lightweight' or 'charming, but disposable',
or anything like that. It's absolute hogwash that 'music should make sense'.
Music should impress; and this music is so well-written, memorable and
catchy that it can't but impress. And in any case, I don't really see how
Ram can be more 'lightweight' than, say, A Hard Day's Night.
Personally, I would take these funny little Edward Lear-like lyrics over
the Beatles' early love cliches any day of my life. And the melodies rule.
They rule. This is unquestionably the best pop album of 1971 and one of
the best pop albums of the entire decade. A true classic.
Ram on and mail your ideas
Your worthy comments:
Simon Hearn <[email protected]> (14.09.99)
Hmm?.. It seems to me that on RAM Paul purposely abandoned the over production of Abbey Road and let the songs speak for themselves. This is not to slag off Abbey Road, of course - this albums just shows another side to Mccartney. 'Monkberry Moon Delight' shows he could still rock after he left the fab four and 'Uncle Albert' is typical mccartney - a sweet pop song that on this occasion manages to avoid the tweeness of subsequent efforts. This proves that Mccartney is one of the most melodic songwriters EVER.
Jason <[email protected]> (21.09.99)
I remember reading somewhere RAM was like a hollow chocolate
egg--smooth and enticing outside, but gooey and empty inside. bullshit.
pure and utter human waste.
RAM kicks ass! and you know what? i like it so damn much that my
revolver album's showing signs of jealousy. what a shame it wasn't
a beatles album, eh? throw in some of john's stuff from past masters
vol 2, george's tracks from yellow submarine, and maybe even
a ringo in the mix and hey---! you've got something there!! thanx for giving
it the praise and respect it deserved.
João Vargas <[email protected]> (26.12.99)
I like the off-the-cuff sound this album has. There are lots of neat production tricks and beautiful melodies. Paul's vocals are brilliant, and the guitar sound is interesting. That said, there are some things I don't like about this album: the lyrics seem constantly inane, and sometimes the production is too off the cuff: it sounds dangerously home made and unrehearsed in places. That said, I'd give it an 8.
Myris Collett <[email protected]> (29.01.2000)
you're right on target great album. 'back seat of my car' is a great song. i give this album a 9
Patrick Niesink <[email protected]> (01.02.2000)
I found your site while looking for reviews of McCartney's Ram, which I just heard for the first time. (I'm not that young, just busy!) You're dead right about it by the way. A wonderful, lighthearted album. The songs seem to flow out of McCartney almost effortlessly, and he seems to be really enjoying himself. "Ram On" just blew me away, and I can't get "Too Many People" out of my head, in spite of the stuck-up lyrics.
Jeff Blehar <[email protected]> (08.02.2000)
Well this one is just marvelous! Ram manages to sound simultaneously
both off-the-cuff and slickly produced at once, and that is no mean feat.
Now I can understand why the critics took their hatchets out on this one,
as it's got little or no lyrical meaning - let's face it, songs like "Monkberry
Moon Delight" and "Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey" exist for
the sake of the music alone - but screw it! This is one of the only times
where I'll happily pitch my reservations out the window and sink into the
absolutely luxurious melodies and gorgeous production gimmicks. Other than
"Monkberry Moon Delight" which never did a damn thing for me
(I think the Zeppelinisms here are strained and phony sounding, unlike
those on the wonderful bonus track "Oh Woman, Oh Why?"), there
isn't really a wasted track on here: "Too Many People" is an
absolute classic, with stinging guitar, wonderful melody lines, and a surprisingly
incisive lyric that's only a faintly veiled attack on Lennon. "3 Legs"
originally irked me, but now gets me bobbing my head, while "Ram On"
is a beautiful ukelele tune that deserves its reprise (although there's
no particular conceptual reason for its existence) - and note that McCartney
launches into "Big Barn Bed" right at the end of the reprise.
I just love picking things like that up! What else? Well, "Long Haired
Lady" has the best melody on an album packed with them, while the
two singles, "Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey" (the US choice) and
"The Back Seat Of My Car" (the UK release) are both great production
pieces. I actually prefer the latter, both because it's underexposed and
because there's a certain desperation about it that's representative of
not only this album but of all of McCartney's albums up to Band On The
Run (where it's made into the explicit centerpiece).
This is an aspect of these albums that I've never heard anyone comment
on before, and yet I don't think it simply exists in my head. Throughout
all of Paul's pre-1973 albums runs a current of desperation - not hopelessness,
but the beleaguered sound of someone on the run from his past. Over and
over he tries to prove himself on each of these albums, whether it's by
stripping the sound down (McCartney and Wings Wild Life)
or by making a big production out of it (Ram and Red Rose Speedway).
I mean, he always had commercial approval, but I just get this image that
he's scrambling for more, struggling for respect that's constantly being
denied him. And to my ears it infuses these albums with a passion that
his later work often lacks: despite his past as a Beatle, he's a man with
something to prove. And on Ram he does a damn fine job; I'd happily
give this a 10/10 and recommend it to almost anyone.
Rose Mary <[email protected]> (17.02.2000)
NOW I CAN COME OUT OF THE CLOSET AND CONFESS HOW MUCH I LOVED THIS RAM ALBUM. HIGHLY UNDERRATED AND UNAPPRECIATED BY THE CRITICS, RAM MUST BE INCLUDED IN ANY TOP 20 ROCK/POP ALBUMS OF ALL TIME. GEMS LIKE 'MONKBERRY..', 'HEART OF THE COUNTRY' , 'TOO MANY PEOPLE', AND 'BACKSEAT OF MY CAR' ARE TRULY DELICIOUS ...
John Haubrich <[email protected]> (24.02.2000)
Agreed, All the way through this is one of Paul's best records. I first listened to it in 1971 and still get a charge out of it, especially "Dear Boy." Also, I remember playing 'Monkberry Moon Delight' for a Rolling Stones fan and he was utterly amazed that Paul was capable of such a good song (I, of course, reminded him that Paul wrote their first hit) I don't think enough people listened to this one all the way through enough times. It still is a lot of fun to listen to.
David McLeod <[email protected]> (17.07.2000)
Ram is a truly great album. I finally got the CD yesterday. Not having heard the complete album for several years, listening to it with fresh ears, I can only say that it is one of my favorite albums of all time.
<[email protected]> (02.08.2000)
This album is stylistically similar to McCartney, except that
there are a lot more of what can be described as 'full-fledged' songs.
In fact, I really find a higher number of them to be first-rate than I
do on the earlier album. 'Too Many People' is one of the best slabs of
pure pop I've ever heard. 'Heart Of The Country' is thoroughly infectious
and has a nice rural homey feeling to it. 'Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey'
is like a carnival ride of various catchy melodies. Those three are my
favorites. I also think 'The Back Seat Of My Car' is first-rate. Let's
see - what else? Well, I'd say 'Dear Boy' is a song that I should probably
hate, but I can't deny it's melodic content and those background harmonies.
And even though it's a 'ditty', 'Ram On' is succeeds quite well melodically
and mood-wise. So does that other ditty - what's it called? - oh, yeah,
'Ram On'.
And then there's the rest, most of which I can pretty much do without.
Not that each song doesn't at least have something going for it. 'Monkberry
Moon Delight' is enjoyable enough, but Paul's vocal is one of the most
obnoxious I've ever heard him deliver. Which brings me to 'Smile Away',
which also sports a thoroughly hideous vocal. It's not much of a tune,
either, though the fuzz bass is cool. I can't say I'm really impressed
with 'Eat At Home' or '3 Legs', but they seem OK. 'Long Haired Lady' would
probably be really good if Paul had just edited out that thing Linda sings:
'Or is this the only thing you want me for'. I suspect she wrote that awful
bit of melody. It's just horrid. I'm willing to admit that this is one
of Paul's best albums, but that's actually a pretty sad point to make,
considering how talented the guy is.
Oh, and the bonus tracks. Well, actually, I've got the original CD, which
doesn't have any, but the remastered CD has 'Another Day' and 'Oh Woman,
Oh Why', which I've got on other CDs. For those not aware, these were respectively
the A-side and B-side of the single that Paul released midway between McCartney
and Ram. Neither were included on any regular LP releases. The A-side
is consistent with the songs on Ram - catchy and light - kinda fun.
The B-side is somewhat strange and bluesy. Neither really sends me into
spasms of pleasure.
Sidelight: Has anybody noticed that the back cover shows a beetle getting
fucked by a beetle?
Son of sidelight: I noticed that George hasn't reviewed the album Thrillington.
This was an instrumental LP that Paul produced - but I don't think he played
on it. But anyway, it's made up of instrumental versions of the songs on
Ram. (Except that there's no second version of 'Ram On') It was
released in April 1977, putting it right between Wings Over America
and 'Mull of Kintyre' for all of you who are chronologically-minded. (Except
that the Linda song 'Seaside Woman' came out a month later). It's kind
of an entertaining listen, mostly because the melodies are good, but also
the arrangements are usually interesting. It still sort of sounds like
70s soundtrack music, though. For hardcore fans only. Oh wait - this is
Paul. I guess his fans are softcore, right?
Brenden Majerech <[email protected]> (24.10.2000)
I automatically give this album a 10. And it's also the best music
Paul was able to write after the break-up of the liverpudlians.
'Too Many People' - Very catchy and accompanied by a wonderful chord progression.
The guitar solo at the end does not get tiresome since the chord progression
is using modulation in a canonic form. Very clever.
'Three Leg' - nice little 12 bar blues with unique lyrics. Also the form
of the 12 bar blues reminds me of 'Day Tripper' where the form tricks
your ears away from the typical cliched progressions. Just displays another
fine characteristic style of Paul. The change of groove near the end fits
very well also.
'Ram' - Nice little melody that doesn't show off anything. The Orchestration
is outstanding and tasteful. I especially like the odd 2 chord progression
which sounds complete.
'Dear Boy' - Very haunting melody but shows off a wonderful array of harmony
in all the voices presented. I like all the voices better than 85 voices
of Freddie Mercury. Also the voices sing rhthmic shots and serve well in
imitating real instruments.
'Uncle Albert...etc...' .- Typical Paul writing. Wonderful rondeau with
the form. Very Cheezie but presented in a chart-topping way. Much
like 'Band on the Run' in form.
'Smile Away' - Not my favorite song on the album but the lead guitar is
great and so is the chanting of the backing vocals.
'Monkberry Moon Delight' - Great chord progression. The vocals are needed
to be entertaining in a funny and talented sense.
'Eat at Home' - Great guitar riff in the vocal breaks but really can't
stand Linda's harmony. Thge form is once again fabulous fooling the average
listener where the song is heading. Also, the song is thematic in a lyric
sense which keeps me listening.
'Heart of the Country' - An enjoyable compostion with beautiful scatting
while playing the same melody on the guitar in the instrument breaks. Wow.
I love this song the most because of that reason.
'Long Haired Lady' - I really enjoy this song everytime I hear it. I've
even enjoy Linda's horrible vocals in the beginning. (Do you love me like
I.....) I really enjoy how this song evolves into three different styles.
Some may say the ending is too repetitive but I think it is developing
in a productive way.
'Back Seat of My Car' - The contrast of style with swing, heavier than
usual rock, beatiful little oohing, mumbling and screaming makes this song
the best song on the entire album. It's a fianle piece to a musical. It's
explosive and orgasmic for a listener to hear this masterpiece at the end
of the LP. Wow.
Sergey Zhilkin <[email protected]> (04.12.2000)
It's the first English-music album I listened to. I was about five years
old or something about it. I didn't like it back in 1990 but when I was
searching through my vynil (yeah, yeah, you heard right: non-USSR vynil
disc. I think I should thank my grandpa - pilot of a plane (route USSR-USA))
discs a year ago I found it and relistened. Guess what I did right after
that? Yes, I ran to the nearest CD-shop and bought licenced (!!!) copy.
This is my only licenced disc till this day.
Maybe Ram is the best Paul's album ant the most quintessential,
too. I don't have much to add to your review but here're some notes. Firstly,
did you hear Paul singing 'Whose's that coming round that corner....' in
last seconds of reprise to 'Ram on'? It's the line from great song called
'Big Barn Bed' from Red rose speedway. Here's the question: why
did Paul wait so long? Why didn't he put out this song on Ram or
Wild life at least? Oh, well, forget it. Then last note: 'Uncle
Albert/ Admiral Halsey' took the dirst place in American hit-parade but
wasn't issued in UK (as a single).
O.K. and now the ratings. It gets 14/15 itself and if we are talking about
1993-reissue (my situation), it's 15/15. 'Another day' makes me cry every
time I hear it and 'Oh, woman, oh, why?' is logical sequel to 'Why don't
we do it on the road'.
By the way, you can easily do a good prank on your friends: ask them to
define is 'Monkberry moon delight' Rolling Stones' song or not.
m.miller1 <[email protected]> (07.12.2000)
Probably the most deceptive McCartney album. On first listen I found
it rather unappealing, a bit of a mess really. Now Im in a different mind.
Though none of the songs really stick out as McCartney classics, they are
so cleverly crafted, multiple hooks woven together and sung with the kind
of lunacy that I think only mccartney is capable of.
'Too Many People' is a great opener, I love the haunting 'Ram On', and
obviously 'Uncle Albert' (what the bloody hell is that about - come to
it, what the bloody hell is the whole album about?). 'Monkberry Moon Delight'
is marvelous and though its supposed to be nonsense, I cant help but think
there's some meaning behind it.
Actually Ive got a soft spot for all the tracks, the album. It wasnt the
commercial album every one was still expecting, that wouldnt come for a
few years yet, but it is a testament to pauls exceptional muscial genius,
his ability to make songs that creep up on you all sly and then knock you
round the head when you least expect it.
This isnt an album of exceptional songs, but it is an exceptionally good album,
from some reason!
Year Of Release: 1971
Record rating = 7
Overall rating = 11
The first Wings album, but it still sounds more like a McCartney
solo...
Best song: SOME PEOPLE NEVER KNOW
Said to be the first and worst Wings' album, but I must vehemently disagree...
Oops, on second thought, though, I must rather agree. One cannot disagree
with the obvious fact that this was the first Wings' album: and if you
dunno, Wings originally consisted of Paul, Linda, Denny Laine (ex-MoodyBluesman
who was supposed to be too bluesy for the Moody Blues, but as a Wingsman
he seemed to be just all right) and Denny Seiwell (the Ram drummer),
although the only members that should interest you are Linda and Laine.
Oh, and that McCartney dude, of course. The funny thing is, he also contributed
a couple of songs. From time to time.
Nah, just pulling your leg for a bit. Actually, this album is still pure
solo McCartney, it doesn't sound like being put together by different members
of a band. And here it comes to the second part of the critics' statement.
Well, it might have been the worst Wings' album, but by no means does it
mean 'bad'. A radical problem is that it is horrendously underdeveloped,
but not in the way that his debut album was underdeveloped. What I want
to say is that it was obviously a very quick and rash toss-off: the band
didn't have enough songs, enough melodies, enough creative ideas, enough
anything. Hence the scarce number of the songs - there's but eight compositions,
not counting the short reprises christened 'links', out of which only two
or three, most importantly, 'Some People Never Know' and 'I Am Your Singer',
are more or less polished to perfection. And the songs are all deadly long,
which, paired with their repetitiveness and lyrical shallowness, can prove
a deadly blow to the listener.
Still, honour must be given to Paul: by anybody else's accounts, this would
be an unbearable experience, yet Mr McCartney is able to make it work -
if only by the sheer power of the unbeatable melody-making machine that
this gentleman's mind once used to contain. Yes, the songs are few, overlong
and repetitive, but most of this stuff is as catchy and well-written (okay...
"well-designed", if one takes into account the album's 'unfinished'
nature) as almost anything in the McCartney catalog. As a result, I don't
give a damn: throwing away the biases, I enjoy it practically from top
to bottom, even if it is far more lightweight than Ram, and what
can be more lightweight than Ram? Still, as you might have guessed,
I don't take 'lightweight' for a rude word. Here, 'lightweight' rather
means something like 'funny'.
Indeed, a couple of numbers are just funny grooves: on 'Mumbo', for instance,
Paul seems to be pulling a Lennon by imitating his Primal Scream. However,
it is obvious he never tried visiting Janov: it ends up sounding like a
horrid mess, and, indeed, this is the only track on the whole album I like
to skip while listening to it. Still, for the first few listens it's a
good laugh - especially when you try to decipher Paul's crazy patter. Then
the novelty factor wears off and boredom sets in, but not disgust - just
boredom. On the other hand, 'Bip Bop' is one groove that works:
it's just a silly bit of nonsense poetry set to a weird country rhythm,
and it chunks along nicely like anything from his debut record (isn't it
an outtake?) It would be easy to regard it as a piece of stupid rootsy
nonsense, but since it's so firmly tongue in-cheek, I'll disregard that
possibility. Oh, the hours of air guitar playing to that rhythm... well,
we all have our guilty pleasures.
Also, lack of material at that stage seems obvious, cause they cover Buddy
Holly's 'Love Is Strange' (in a good way, too - and they go on with the
instrumental part in the intro for so long that you think it's going to
be an instrumental and then the vocals jump out at you all of a sudden.
Cool!) Moreover, writing the other songs apparently cost Paul little effort,
and that's probably why people treat it with such a scepticism. But the
title track is quite enjoyable. Just forget the dumb animals' rights lyrics
and concentrate on the melody... er... well, okay, I confess, I would be
hard pressed to find a melody on that one, but there's something about
the moody atmosphere and Paul's hysterical vocal delivery that touches
me. Reason? Still has to think of it. Paul's minimalistic, piano-based
response to John's critique, 'Dear Friend', is very touching - that's one
underproduced song that's meant to be minimalistic, like 'Imagine',
only with a bitter, slightly ironic edge. Yet in its own way it hits harder
than 'How Do You Sleep' with its subtlety and deep understatement.
And then there's the album's masterpiece - the multipart ballad 'Some People
Never Know', which has to qualify as one of his best sentimental
bits of balladeering, with its harmonies again reminiscent of the Beach
Boys. Catchy, shiny, resplendent in all of its multifacet beauty... pretty
as a picture, in other words.
So one last word, specially to people who haven't bought Wild Life
because the critics said it stank: it stinks about as much as you.
So if you stink, don't buy it. But if you don't, go ahead. Everything stinks
in its own way, the problem is when the stinkiness gets out of control.
The bonus tracks on the re-release include a couple of 1972 singles, all
of them quite conventional: 'Give Ireland Back To The Irish' is a, strange
enough, happy pop number about you-know-what (was Paul really hoping
the Queen would happily dance along to this song?), while 'Mary Had A Little
Lamb' is yet another happy pop number about you-know-what (released deliberately
in contrast to the politicized 'Ireland').
Dear friend! Mail your ideas
Your worthy comments:
Josh <[email protected]> (24.05.99)
Can't say I agree 100% with you, but you are right about the critics
who hated it. The main thing about this album though is that it's reaaaaally
weird & different from average Paul albums. "Mumbo" is, well,
pointless. Are the lyrics in English?!?!? Or some crazy Asian language?
Or are they just stuff from Paul's broad imagination? Guess we'll never
know. "Bip Bop" is especially crazed, with some hoarse, but interesting
vocals from Denny. Not a bad song, but overlong. "Love Is Strange"
is the best cover song Paul has ever recorded, (and that includes covers
he did w/The Beatles)."Wild Life" is also too long. And Paul's
vocals must have tortured his throat. I think he's try too hard to sound
like John. I agree that "Some People Never Know" is the best
song, and should have been a hit. That's one song that deserves to be 6
minutes. Never did like "I Am Your Singer". Particularly Linda's
vocals (sorry Paul). "Tommorow" is a nice little pop song. "Dear
Friend" is alright, but it's just too long, again at 6 minutes. While
it IS underrated, I really can't give it more than a 7.
My rating-7
Jeff Blehar <[email protected]> (08.02.2000)
This is a severe misstep, in my opinion. Even if it's not the travesty its often made out to be. Still, the sound of an artist struggling with his muse is palpable as on the last album, and it makes for a few good moments. NOT among those are "Mumbo" and "Bip Bop," two of the worst excuses for rockers I've ever heard from anyone - badly produced (as indeed this entire album is; the only well-produced song, "Dear Friend," is an outtake from Ram, natch) and pointless, they really hurt the album (and they're reprised! WHY?). "Wild Life" is a stupid, tuneless song, and Paul is at his most excruciating vocally (which is hard for him to be, warm happysinger that he is). "I Am Your Singer" is merely undistinguished. So why give Wings Wild Life (and check the album - the word "Wings" is bizarrely enough included in the title) the time of day? Because, as George said, "Some People Never Know" is an impressive, if underproduced suitelike song (though Linda's singing almost ruins this song, as well as many of the others on the album, for me. Thankfully she'd never be so vocally prominent again.) "Love Is Strange" is a hot little cover, while "Dear Friend" is simply devastating. McCartney recorded it back in early 1971 during the Ram sessions when Lennon was taking shots at him in the press, but declined to release it, choosing the subtler "Too Many People" instead. But then came Imagine and "How Do You Sleep?," and so McCartney let this see the light of day. Nothing else he ever wrote conveys such shocked hurt and betrayal. It's a very simple song, but all the more powerful for it. Nevertheless (and despite the bonus tracks, which I quite like) I can't give this any more than a 5/10; the band is too unpracticed, McCartney's voice is strained, most of the compositions are lacking, and Linda's voice just annoys the bejeezus outta me.
<[email protected]> (02.08.2000)
This is one of those albums where I have to really strain to think of
positive things to say. If it weren't for 'Love Is Strange' (which was
actually a hit for Mickey and Sylvia - not Buddy Holly), side one would
be a total travesty. As it is, I do kind of enjoy 'Love Is Strange', perhaps
more than the songs on side two, which are at least passable in most cases.
In fact, I think the most solid track on the album is 'Bip Bop Link' (the
short instrumental version, not the total joke of a song on side one).
It's really quite a nice little piece. 'Some People Never Know' has a little
bit of inspired melody sandwiched between some not-so-inspired melody.
'Dear Friend' is redundant in the extreme, and melodically not worth the
time spent on it. 'I Am Your Singer' and 'Tomorrow' are just simply mediocre.
I'm hoping to never have to listen to the title track again. 'Mumbo'? Let's
see - there's kind of a funky little thing on there that the guitars do
that I kinda like. Otherwise, I'm baffled by its existence. 'Mumbo Link'?
Well, it's short, anyway.
Okay, now I'm picturing a boss I had many years ago who was one of the
biggest pricks I've ever had to deal with in my life. I'm picturing this
boss alone on a desert island. And by some miracle of fate, I'm the one
who gets to pick which albums will be this guy's 'desert island' albums.
. . . . 'bip bop - bip bop bo - bip bop boo dop bay' . . .
Now for those out there who are actually interested in the album, here's
the lowdown on the CD bonus tracks. The original CD included 'Oh Woman,
Oh Why' (the b-side to Paul's first single, which I can take or leave),
'Mary Had A Little Lamb' (one of Wings' 1972 a-sides, and darned catchy,
too - and little Mary McCartney sounds awful cute there on the chorus,
doesn't she?) and 'Little Woman Love' (the b-side to 'Mary Had a Little
Lamb', a fairly enjoyable boogie-woogie number). So after we all got that
CD, the remastered CD was released, and this was the only CD where you
could get 'Give Ireland Back To The Irish' (the next a-side the group did,
with rather mundane-sounding lyrics for somewhat so relevant - I admire
Paul's stance on the issue, though) and 'Mama's Little Girl' (which was
recorded in 1978 but not released until 1990 when it came out as the b-side
to 'Put It There' - I think it's a fairly pleasant little tune). Also on
the remastered CD were 'Mary Had A Little Lamb' and 'Little Woman Love'.
(Incidentally, the b-side of 'Give Ireland Back To The Irish' was an instrumental
version which has yet to be officially released on CD.)
Bob Josef <[email protected]> (14.09.2000)
The reason that "Mumbo" is so hideous is that the track was totally improvised as the tapes were rolling! It's typical of the attitude behind the album -- Paul just wanted to be informal, laid-back, as on the previous two -- but he just got a little TOO laid-back, so much so that a rather sloppy product escaped. I haven't heard the whole thing in a long time, and I don't think I want to again. However, they really missed the boat by not releasing "Love Is Strange" as a single -- it got a lot of FM airplay (as least in Boston) and was good enough to cross over to AM Top Forty.
Year Of Release: 1973
Record rating = 8
Overall rating = 12
Gettin' serious and playful at the same time. Complex, too. Melodical,
too. As hell.
Best song: LITTLE LAMB DRAGONFLY
So! Where are those funny grooves and 'lightweight' compositions? Gone
they are! Paul is stepping onto more inventive, more creative and experimental
territory. Wild Life was not as bad as they picture it, but it was
still just an experiment and a first try - a shy treading of water with
raw, unfinished material. The real story of Wings and Paul's creative re-creation
begins here. This is yet another pop album, but it's not just pure pop.
Having cast a questioning eye into the modern trends and fashions, Paul
evidently perceived that the most hip thing there was to do was to reinvent
himself as a... prog rocker! Yeah, I'm not afraid of that word,
dammit - prog rock is certainly one of his main inspirations on this album.
Sure, neither Paul nor his Flippers... er, sorry, Wings had the necessary
musicianship strength to pull off a genuine prog rock album, and, of course,
Paul never intended to make a prog rock album in the straightforward sense
of the word. But what the hell - can't you hear prog rock influences in
such bizarre tracks as the instrumental 'Loup (1st Indian On The Moon)'
with its howling rhythm and creepy keyboard and bass breaks? Or in the
brilliant, totally idiosyncratic and unforgettable acoustic suite 'Little
Lamb Dragonfly'? There's some serious overcomplication for you, like "progressive
ideas seen from the point of view of a veteran popster". Which is,
of course, the best way to do progressive. Mind you, I'm not saying that
this album is progressive - I just see some influences, that's all.
Not to mention that one of Paul's favourite bands at the time was Jethro
Tull...
Anyway, don't go mistaking 'Little Lamb Dragonfly' for pure sweet pop -
go and listen to the lyrics and tell me if they are pure pop or not. As
is obvious, this is my favourite track on the whole album and rightly so;
a breathtaking, proverbially beautiful acoustic suite that holds up pretty
well against anything on Abbey Road. Hell, when these tear-inducing,
stately la-la-las strike in on the border between the two main sections,
I have no problem in seeing the good old Beatles majesty right before my
eyes and ears. It's here, goddammit, it's here and now.
Don't know whether you'll agree or not, but I'd say that the almost-not-less-gorgeous
closing medley also borrows a lot from prog-rock and not from other sources,
like, for example, the most obvious - the final suite on Abbey Road.
Not that I can prove it (this time even the lyrics are hardly prog), but
I somehow feel it. Anyway, what was Paul really listening to these days?
The heyday of prog? Oh, never mind. Never mind my theoretical dabblings.
Just take a listen yourself. In any case, all the four parts of the medley
rule mercilessly - I don't mind if everybody baffles them for being dumb,
lightweight, repetitive, slow, boring, etc. What I hear are four delightful
slices of pop melody - sure, the endless 'hold me tight, hold me tight'
chanting on the 'Hold Me Tight' section (not the old Beatles song
- this one's better) might have been trimmed a little, but I'm probably
the only person in the world to go nuts over the 'baby I love you so, be
I love you so, be I love you so' climactic ending of 'Power Cut'. Well,
I don't mind; I'm here to promote great melody and that's exactly what
I'm trying to do. Although, on second thought, these parts of the medley
probably wouldn't have made it as individual numbers: as in the case with
Abbey Road, the decision to incorporate them within one large song
melded the "lightweight greatness" of the parts into one large,
mastodontic greatness of the whole suite.
Most of the other tracks are hardly "prog-influenced", but none
of them are bad. Some more pop originals, all of them quite nice - not
as banal as the ones on Wild Life, and all filled with subtle hooks.
The quiet, delicate country ballad 'One More Kiss' is punctured by little
melancholy guitar licks in the chorus (the ones that go 'only one more
kis... pinnnng... I never meant to hurt you little girl... pinnnng...').
'When The Night' is another successful late period Beach Boys rip-off.
And 'Single Pigeon' is a generic Macca piano solo number, which means it's
delightful and seducing.
The main hit from the record was 'My Love', but this is where the saccharine
level gets a little bit too iffy even for my ears. Not one of my
favourites, although I can't deny the inhumane catchiness of the melody,
and the guitar solo by Henry McCullough is absolutely terrific (Paul sometimes
used it as an argument for his 'democracy' in the studio - he wanted another
solo, but Henry asked him to change it at the last minute and came out
with a winner). But if you want something a bit more rockin', you might
as well grab the opening 'Big Barn Bed' and 'Get On The Right Thing' -
there's enough ass-kicking in these two songs to make a slight compensation
for the lack of fast dancing numbers. My money's not with these one, though:
it's certainly with 'Little Lamb Dragonfly' and the closing medley.
And don't forget to get the recent re-release, cause it has a great single
of the epoch. 'Country Dreamer' is another charming country pop number,
but I personally prefer the B-side 'I Lie Around': it's just so incredibly
entertaining! The melody is simply untouchable, and it's Denny Laine who
sings it, too. The reissue also has a decent live rocker ('The Mess') that
has a weird gloomy atmosphere about it, so untypical for typical McCartney
rockers.
P.S. I've just had an idea about 'Little Lamb Dragonfly'. OF COURSE it
is directly related to 'Mary Had A Little Lamb' which he released on single
a year ago. That's where both the 'little lamb' idea and the wonderful
'la-la-la-la''s come from. 'My heart is breaking for you little lamb/I
can help you out/But I cannot help you in'. That's what Mary is bound to
say to the lamb when she goes to school! Hah! Congratulate me on my brilliancy!
Get on the right thing! Mail your ideas
Your worthy comments:
João Vargas <[email protected]> (26.12.99)
Finally, a more carefully produced Paul album. It's pretty lightweight, but that's not a bad thing! 'One More Kiss' is entertaining, 'Big Barn Bed' is cool, and 'Single Pigeon' sounds like he's laughing at himself. The medley is great, with lots of great songs which would probably have sounded pretty weak on their own. But the real gem is 'Little Lamb Dragon fly'. It has great melody lyrics, harmonies, and production.THIS should have been the single, and not the over-sweet 'My Love'. I'd give this album a 7.
Jeff Blehar <[email protected]> (08.02.2000)
Well George, I have to say that your prog-rock theory is somewhat silly
- you're trying to apply your knowledge in a field you're quite familiar
with (prog-rock) onto a template which simply won't fit. Besides, McCartney
and Glyn Johns (engineer on the sessions) have a given in interviews a
much different explanation for the sound of Red Rose Speedway: Paul's
continued search for acceptance by the hip press led him to experiment
around with ideas he tried during his tenure with The Beatles. Indeed,
it's not a long jump from the spring-abuse of "Wild Honey Pie"
to the instrumental "Loup (1st Indian On The Moon)," nor is the
medley which ends the album anything more than a less successful attempt
at imitating The Long Medley from Abbey Road. It was created under
similar circumstances as well; McCartney had a few songs lying around from
back in 1971 and '72, and instead of trying to flesh them out into 3:00
pieces, he medleyed them. Unfortunately, the results aren't that inspiring,
chiefly because the songs are of lesser caliber.
In fact, much of the problem with this album is in failed experimentation;
the medley wouldn't be a problem if it didn't eat up so much time, and
"Loup" is just a distracting mess. "One More Kiss"
and "My Love" strike me as everything I can dislike about McCartney's
music: sappy, soggy melodies played in JUST the perfect manner as to make
them completely infuriating (especially "My Love" - ack!). Then
again, "Little Lamb Dragonfly" is simply breathtaking. I couldn't
believe how heartbreakingly beautiful this song was when I first heard
it, and time has done absolutely nothing to diminish its vibrant appeal.
I mean, everything is right about this song - the melody is just compulsively
hummable, the instrumentation is goose-bump inducing (e.g., the use of
strings when the band sings "la, la la la, etc."), and McCartney's
vocal performance, especially on the wracked "since you've gone"
section is really memorable. That songs like this are allowed to languish
on the album while crap like "My Love" gets endless airplay just
jerks my chain in all sorts of way. There's a lot of other stuff on this
album that's great too, if not that towering: "Big Barn Bed"
and "Get On The Right Thing" are engaging rockers, though quite
poppy, and "Single Pigeon" and "When The Night" manage
to be charming where stuff like "One More Kiss" was just annoying.
I'd give this a 7/10 (if only for "Little Lamb Dragonfly) and up it
to an 8/10 (so we agree in the end!) if you get the version with four great
bonus tracks: "C Moon," "Hi, Hi, Hi," "The Mess,"
and a nice Denny Laine-sung B-side, "I Lie Around."
<[email protected]> (04.08.2000)
I've always thought of this album as being sort of in-between Wild
Life and Band On The Run - and I don't just mean chronologically.
It's certainly better than the earlier effort, but it pales in comparison
to the latter. For me, the best song would have to be 'Big Barn Bed', which
could have easily been an a-side, but serves its purpose well as a catchy
album-opener. I also enjoy 'One More Kiss', and think McCartney had a particular
gift for these gentle country ballads. I'm also quite partial to 'Loup
(1st Indian On The Moon)' if only because I don't hear anything wrong with
it. It serves its purpose well.
I have reservations about all of the remaining tracks. 'My Love' is one
of those tunes that has obvious commercial appeal (and a really nice guitar
solo), but doesn't do a damn thing for me. I'll just set it on the closet
shelf next to 'The Long And Winding Road'. 'Get On The Right Thing' (which
I understand was left over from Ram) sounds pretty solid, but I
have this thing about songs that sound straight out of the 70s - I guess
I have a 60s bias. 'Single Pigeon' is kind of quirky but never reaches
its potential, and it always reminds me of 'Words Of Love' by the Mamas
& the Papas. 'When The Night' is what I would describe as 'trite gospel'.
And 'Little Lamb Dragonfly' is basically a bunch of pretty-sounding stuff
piled onto generally uninspired melodies. (There, I said it!) The medley
is tremendously inconsistent. The only section that works all the way through
is 'Hand Of Love', which is maddeningly cute and catchy. I'm mad at myself
for liking it. 'Hold Me Tight' has a pretty nice verse on it and a really
dumb chorus. (Am I the only one who was disappointed to find that this
wasn't an updated version of the Beatle song?) 'Power Cut' sounds okay
to me, but also kinda dumb. 'Lazy Dynamite' is simply a throwaway.
I've noticed two interesting things about this album. First, it's by Paul
McCartney and Wings - rather than Wings. Second, the songwriting credits
go to 'McCartney' - without any specification about whether it's just Paul
or Paul with Linda.
And now for the bonus tracks. I'm starting to think that 'I Lie Around'
(the b-side to 'Live And Let Die') might be the best song Wings ever did.
It's got a great melody (particularly the verse part sung by Denny Laine
- he should have sung lead more often), there's a bunch of dynamic arrangement
in it, and it sounds like they're having a great, silly time. Usually,
I get really weary when Paul does his sort-of obnoxious vocalizations,
but on this song, he gets away with it with flying colors. It's exactly
what a b-side should be - an undiscovered classic. The original CD (but
not the remastered one) includes 'Country Dreamer' (from the b-side of
'Helen Wheels'), yet another example of Paul's ability to write thoroughly
engaging country tunes - another undiscovered classic. Then there's 'The
Mess', a live recording from the b-side of 'My Love'. It pretty well shows
that Wings weren't the greatest rock band when it came to rocking. Even
the song itself ain't much. The remastered CD (but not the original) includes
both sides of the last Wings single of '72: 'Hi Hi Hi' (a catchy tune that
doesn't rock as well as it should) and 'C Moon' (another totally charming
b-side, with his kids on backing vocals methinks).
Teresa Juarez Guzman <[email protected]> (26.11.2000)
No, "george"?, you're not the only one to go nuts over the final verse in this album. This is one of my all time best loved albums, along with Ram. In fact, I've arranged my CD player to switch "Big Barn Bed" to "I Lie Around" as the first track! This is the first time I read (what I think they should be) fair reviews of Paul McCartney: by a fan who can go beyond the pop formality without the "Beatles-should-have-stayed-together" cliché. You know? They used to play "silly love songs" together also.
Sergey Zhilkin <[email protected]> (29.11.2000)
I must have misuderstood something. Eight?! OK, let's start from the
beginning. Firstly, we have to admit that this album was a breakthrough
for Paul because all his previous efforts (and what good efforts!) were
overlooked (oh, better to say 'much underrated'). 'My love' took the first
place in the charts and this was hailed as McCartney's COMEBACK (though,
in my opinion, there was no goaway). True, the song is very good and it
deserves to be the best one here (instead of 'Little lamb dragonfly').
Now I'd like to argue with you about 'Lamb'. Well, I've just read the lyrics
of this song... Nothing to say. I mean that they are surely better than
AC/DC's ones but Paul doesn't open his heart when he sings 'Lamb' and the
lyrics seem dull. By the way, the lack of straightforwardness is Paul's
greatest minus. David Bowie (I really believe in what I say) could sing
'Lamb' better because he always makes good song out of good lyrics. But
if you open another category called 'song with the best lyrics', 'Lamb'
will take the first place there. Oh, I forgot to say that the song itself
was written when Paul and Linda failed to save little lamb on the farm
(it was born too weak) from it's death (So your 'brilliant' idea should
go to ...err... something deep (please, don't be offended, OK?)).
Now I want to mention two outstanding songs (they are outstanding for me
at least): 'Get on the right thing' and 'When the night'. Just look how
Paul plays with you on 'Get on the right thing'! He doesn't show you the
whole melody in the beginning and we have the same sitution on 'When the
night'. Though the lyrics of the last song should go to the same place
where your idea is at this moment (again, please, don't be offended).
And we should not forget about cute pop songs, such as 'Big barn bed' (well,
it's pure pop but for me it's rather depressing thing. I just can't listen
it because it reminds me very sad period of my life), 'One more kiss' (short
and pop, why so many people don't like it?), 'Single pegion' (instrumental
part makes me cry. And here's one question to Paul: why is it so short?).
Well, seems that album turnes out to be very good one but now we face two
prog-rock songs (Paul is prog-rocker? HA-HA-HA three times!). Well, I don't
like 'Loup (1st Indian on the moon)' at all, though it's title sounds very
intresting, and as for that crazy 'Medley' ...err... it makes me feel VERY
sleepy... And here comes the painful question: should we lower the rating
of the album that contains very good songs among some bad ones? My answer
is 'no'! So I rate the album with nine points but this nine comes very
close to ten. Aha! I've just found reason to give it 10: four bonus tracks
are very good (especially 'Hi hi hi' (though it seems to me that Paul sings,
'We're gonna get high, high, high...')) so here you are: Red rose speedway
gets ten out of ten! By the way there was a rumour that Paul named this
album in the name of his secretary Rose. Hmm...Poor Linda must have been
offended much...
Year Of Release: 1974
Record rating = 10
Overall rating = 14
Another heavenly album. Beautiful songs, beautiful moods, beautiful
vibes.
Best song: 1985
Critics just love it, and this time I feel like loving the critics,
even if I don't see no reason to distinguish this album so highly among
the five or six other Wings' albums that surround it (I mean, it's certainly
the best one, but the others are much more than lifeless pieces of shit,
too, mind you). The songs are absolutely wonderbeautiful, though. The album
itself does not fit into any pattern you'd like it to fit into, 'cause
it has it all: ballads, rockers, psycho, blues, country - you name it.
As with most good albums, it is often dubbed 'conceptual', but it isn't.
The title track may be conceptual if taken together with the album cover
- it's all about Paul comparing himself and his band with runaway bad dudes
escaping justice (jeez, what an original metaphor), but that's where the
concept ends, really. Still, it does manage to embody the title track -
a nice little three-part (prog again?) suite going from a lazy orchestrated
shuffle to a hard-rockin' ode before finally turning into a gorgeous pop
song where it stays until the very end. Highlights include: the memorable
riff in the 'hard-rockin' part, good lyrics, the great sing-along line
'ba-a-a-a-nd on the run' and some cool guitar licks played along to same
singalong line. Classic!
And soon after that you get taken to a mystical land of Paul turning into
a bluebird, riding his magic horse, standing under the tropical rain and
talking to Mr Picasso. Perhaps the greatest charm of this album is that
it's his only one (hey! along with Ram, of course) without any straightforward
love ballads with silly lyrics. Out of these songs, only 'Let Me Roll It'
comes close to being a love song, but it's hard-rockin', with a tasty little
riff rolling in and out and in and out for about a hundred times, and nobody
even makes any effort to solo along to it. There's really no need to do
that: it's so cool and moody it almost sounds like a solo by itself. Meanwhile,
'Jet' (which is about Paul's dog) shows us some more of Paul's rockin'
efforts: the way the synths and heavy rhythm tracks blend with each other,
you'd almost swear you're listening to an early Harrison effort. However,
where George was mostly aiming at a highly emotional, spiritual impact,
Paul just runs you over with the very 'massiveness' of the sound itself.
I suppose that some might see it as little else as a generic arena-rocker,
and to a certain extent it is indeed so, but whoever heard of an arena-rocker
with such a great, original melody? Changes in tempo, vocal harmonies,
a complex riff and utmost memorability, all packed together in what must
probably be the greatest canine ode in the world (unless, of course, you
also count in 'Martha My Dear').
The ballads are as charming as ever, plus there's some sudden depth to
them you'd never really expect from McCartney: 'Mamunia' is gentle and
somewhat 'wise' (the lyrics certainly refer to some African customs; who
is 'Mamunia', I wonder?), while 'Bluebird' displays an unexpected Robinson
Cruesoe-ism ('all alone in the desert island/we're living in the trees...').
'No Words' is a beautiful power ballad (I realise that 'beautiful power
ballad' is an oxymoron, but hey, we're talking McCartney here, and he ain't
no Steve Tyler) that's kinda short but manages to incorporate a solid dose
of human emotions into its two minutes or so. Even more cool are the psycho
numbers which build on the Ram legacy but do not repeat it: 'Mrs
Vanderbilt' is another multi-part number which is serious and danceable
and groovy at the same time (love these 'Ho! Heigh-ho!'s), and 'Picasso's
Last Words', written specially at Dustin Hoffman's request, are just plain
fun epithomized, with bits of previous tracks thrown in now and then to
contribute to the pseudo-conceptual stuff. But the album's magnum opus
is certainly the closing '1985' which has nothing to do with Orwell-type
fantasies, but has a lot to do with groovy psycho drug fantasies (dunno
if it was really made on drugs, but wouldn't be suprised if it were). Anyway,
the piano riff is so strong it blows you away in the very first minute,
and the climax - with all these weeping guitars, shrieking synths, booming
drums and Paul hooing and booing all over the place - is the strongest
on any Paul album. (Actually, the record ends with a short re-run of the
title track refrain - conceptuality again?) Hullaballoo! Thus ends the
critics' most tasty honeycomb.
A great album from head to toe. Funny, the more I think about it, the more
words like 'venture', 'journey' and 'travelogue' stick around my head.
It has something to do with Paul's journey to Lagos early that year, and
the African themes he subsequently incorporated into the album ('Mamunia'
and the hey-hos, I suppose?), but the record is certainly more than that.
It's easily Paul's most diverse effort, and it takes you different places.
Just look: the concept of 'band on the run' = 'escape, sail away, move
out, etc.'; the desert island themes of 'Bluebird'; the African motives
of 'Mamunia'; French themes in 'Picasso's Last Words'; and the dangerous
futurism of '1985'. Even The Beatles never did that; maybe that's why,
when I listen to this album, I always forget that it's somehow related
to the Fab Four and just treat it as a separate, McCartney-unrelated musical
experience. I don't even suppose it's easily possible to recognize this
as a McCartney album if you're not told about that previously.
My only warning to everybody: don't be fooled into thinking this is the
only album by Paul that is worth buying. It's simply one of the best, and
probably the most coherent lyrically, with little or no flaws. Oh, and
if you see 'Helen Wheels' on the track listing (and you probably will),
bear in mind that this wasn't on the album originally - it was a single.
It's still good, a classic rocker in its own right. I don't have the remastered
version, so I don't know if there are any other bonus tracks. The single
material from that epoch was top-knotch, as far as I know - songs like
'Junior's Farm' and 'Live And Let Die' are always honoured on my CD player.
Let me roll it to you! Mail your ideas
Your worthy comments:
Josh <[email protected]> (16.05.99)
Grrreat!! At times, slightly repititious, but loads of fun. Sounds like
it was meant to be a concept album, but fails. Anyway, I find "Picasso's
Last Words" a bit overlong, and overdone, to the point of having about
three different songs in one song. But, I have a fondness for "Mamunia",
and the opening organ solo for "Let Me Roll It" is gorgeous!
"Bluebird", real good!! "Helen Wheels", never get sick
of it. And is there anyone who agrees with me that "No Words"
is too short! Well, like any album, it has it's flaws, but it's still really
good.
My Rating-9
Simon Hearn <[email protected]> (14.09.99)
THE album that reinstated his greatness in the public's psyche. 'Jet' is just pulsating and the rest of the collection is equally well written and performed. This album shows mccartney's strength as a pop writer and his grasp of hooklines. This album showed the ex-beatle had an individual identity. We all should bow down at the feet of a master and remember him for this album, not his 80's purile output.
Ben Greenstein <[email protected]> (25.10.99)
I really don't see what makes this album so great. I mean - it's got some solid melodies (in fact, pretty much every track except that stupid "Helen Wheels" ditty is nice n' poppy), but there's no coherence of any kind. It's just a collection of songs. And not all of them are THAT good - "Mamunia" and "Bluebird" sound weak when placed next to classics like the title track and "Jet," or that "Mrs. Vandebilt" song that I like for some reason. I don't remember "1985" as being that great, but keep in mind that I always get bored with the album around the seventh track or so. So I'll try to check it some time in the near future. Regardless of whether I end up loving it or not, the album gets a seven.
Mats Fjäll <[email protected]> (28.11.99)
I agree mostly with you but I think it's overrated.
I think that 'Let Me Roll It' and 'Bluebird' are two great songs, BUT it's
done much better on two live albums, 'LMRI' on Paul is live(parhaps
the the best song on that album, or maybe not...I'm not too sure...)and
'Bluebird' on Wings Over America.
My favourite song on this album is 'Jet'! Great rocker!!!!!
João Vargas <[email protected]> (26.12.99)
Woohoo! This is good stuff. An album which deal mostly with themes of escape and liberty, there are no bad songs on this. Three of the songs are collections of fragments ('Band On The Run', 'Picasso's Last Words', and '1985'), with the final piece of 'Band On The Run' being one of Macca's most brilliant pure pop songs. 'Let Me Roll It' is very cool, with that unforgettable guitar riff and those echoed vocals. To keep from enthusing about all the tracks and wasting space, let me just rave a little over 'Bluebird'. This is Paul's most beautiful love song EVER! I love every minute of it! Go Paul! This album gets a 10, definetly.
Myris Collett <[email protected]> (29.01.2000)
i agree with josh 'no words' is to short. 'jet' is a masterpiece. great album
Jeff Blehar <[email protected]> (09.02.2000)
Hmm...I just don't have as much to say about Band On The Run
as compared to the other albums from the 70's, probably because it's the
one most often commented on. I think it's a tad overrated, however. Only
a tad, though. A solid 9. Now me, I don't give two hoots about conceptualism
coming from my ex-Beatles, because that's not their forte, but BOTR
manages to hold a loose theme together, and if anything it's the underlying
mood of the previous four albums made explicit - desperation, scrambling
for critical acceptance and happiness. You see, Paul wants to be loved!
But he also doesn't want to take any shit, thus tracks like "Mrs.
Vandebilt," which is a great, neglected song. There's no point in
even talking about "Band On The Run" or "Jet" (which
is apparently about his pet black labrador, apropos of absolutely nothing)
- they're great pop-rockers, and there's little else to say. It's the smaller
songs on the album which I truly enjoy, though, like "Mrs. Vandebilt,"
"Bluebird" (alright, so that was a big radio hit, but still,
it SEEMS small and intimate) and especially the Denny Laine co-credit "No
Words." For some peculiar reason, this is currently my favorite song
on the album. It's really nothing more than a fragment, but what a beautiful
one! That McCartney falsetto soul singing? To quote an annoying Yessong,
"We Have Heaven!"
If there's anything which hurts this album (besides "Mamunia,"
which is strictly underwhelming) it's overfamiliarity and unnaturally high
expectations. If you're just coming to it expecting it to be the alpha/omega
of Beatles solo albums, you might be disappointed - there's little here
that I'd say is better than Ram (perhaps equal) and no single song
approaches "Little Lamb Dragonfly" from the previous album. That
being said, it's one honkin' consistent piece of plastic, all the way to
the glorious apocalypse of "Nineteen-Hundred and Eighty-Five"
at the end. Nice bonus tracks, too - "Country Dreamer" is a charming
B-side, and its A-side, "Helen Wheels," was so good that it would
go on to be shamelessly ripped-off by the ostensibly "uncommercial"
Pavement on their Slanted And Enchanted album some 20 years later.
Rich Bunnell <[email protected]> (24.02.2000)
Yeesh, Ben really doesn't like this album, seeing that he's seen fit
to post basically the exact same negative comment on three separate review
pages. Me, I just sit back and be entertained by the cool melodies, except
for that boring Picasso song, which sucks. Sure, the first two songs overlap
everything else on the album ("Jet" has got to have at least
seven or eight hooks alone), but that's no reason to insult the rest of
the album. "Mrs. Vanderbilt" and "Helen Wheels" are
good too--perhaps the latter's a bit stupid and un-Macca-esque but it doesn't
impede any sense of fun. And "1985"--disco piano pop? Love it!
8/10
By the by, Jeff, maybe Pavement did rip off "Helen Wheels" for
"Two States" on Slanted And Enchanted, but they're still,
in many respects, a fine band. One of the few indie bands I can tolerate
(even if they stopped being indie after a few albums).
Darren Bowers <[email protected]> (17.06.2000)
This is as close Paul ever got to reclaiming the throne he once held as one of the best musician's of all time. Although it never reaches the level of the best Beatles albums, it's still a masterpiece. To bad this was his last great effort up to this point. Everything else he released after the Beatles just seems a little lackluster except for this album. It's unfortunate that he didn't maintain this level of creativity through the rest of his career up to this point. Goes to show there is definitely something lacking in his creative force without his partner Lennon. Where Lennon was the master with lyrics and wit, Paul was the master of melody. Combined, they were the best musical partners of all time, but separately they fall short. Each of them needed some creative input from the other to make good songs classics. A good thing to do is listen to each Lennon's and Pauls solo efforts, then try to imagine them working these solo songs into Beatles classics. It's just a shame that they had a falling out, I fell confident that they would have made strong Beatles albums for at least twenty more years. Highlights on the album would be the title song, "Bluebird," "Let me roll it," "Jet," and "Helen wheels." the overall feel of the album is that it's reaching maybe just a little to hard to achieve greatness but just falls somewhat short. Again, if the other three Beatles had had participated in the recording, this would be without a doubt one of the best albums of all time. But there I go dreaming again. Best out of 10. I would give this album an 8. And that's being pretty generous.
mjcarney <[email protected]> (23.07.2000)
Band on the Run,(Paul's best album of his own music) is one album that has its great moments, but it is nowhere near as good as what people make it out to be. This doesn't mean that it is all bad it just has a TON OF FILLER!! For instance, the hit single "Helen Wheels" is a rudimentary, boring piece of garbage--it goes nowhere and was popular because of Paul's name only (a la "My Love"). "Picasso's Last Words"--written in an hour and including a reprise (reggae) of Jet is just plain awful. It has Paul's catchiness, but boy does that song drag--how many times can we hear the chorus. Maybe Paul could have used some help w/ Lennon here. "Let Me Roll It" which some say was a shot back at Lennon for his "How Do You Sleep" attack, falls flat, and sounds like filler--with a surprisingly forced melody. "Bluebird" is typical, lovey-dovey Paul at his sappiest. And yes this is a straight away love song--how could you miss that one? "You're A Bluebird"--how stupid can you get, absolutely horrible Paul's done much worse though. Finally, the last bit of filler, is "Mrs. Vanderbilt". Despite the obvious filler quality to this song, it is actually quite good. Catchy, rocking, rudimentary, classic Paul McCartney filler(it probably took him 15 minutes to write) but it is good filler were the others were not. "No Words" is a strong non-filler track on here, although somewhat too slick for my tastes,but I can't deny the strong melody. Now,despite its filler (50%), there are some great tracks. "Band on The Run" is a classic, epic track sounding somewhat like "Admiral Halsey"--meeting with lennon's "Happiness is a Warm Gun". "Jet"--which thank you, I didn't know was about his dog--is another rocking classic. No one in there right mind can tire of these two. "Mamunia" is Paul in a typical, laid back phase here, with a great African feel too it. It is just refreshing and like the rest of the album has a strong melody. Finally, the brilliant "Nineteen...." ends the album in fine form--and is probably Paul's best solo moment. Despite its filler, it is an engaging record, the filler is produced and segmented together to sound larger than life for the first 20+ listens. The album wears that mystique quickly though, but I would still rate it a 7/10. If you haven't bought this--or even if you have--I would highly reccommend the 25th Anniversary release, it solidifies the sound better, and the interview/demo disc is magnificent. Anyway if you get that disc, it would raise the album up to an 8/10, simply because the demos and stories add so much to the material, but w/out it the album is just a little above average.
<[email protected]> (07.08.2000)
This is definitely my favorite McCartney album. The thing that really
stands out about it is that every song is - at the very least - a good
song. Sure, there are a few that stylistically aren't what I tend to listen
to (which, to an extent, is true of all McCartney music), but there really
isn't anything wrong with any of these songs. I don't normally go for jazzy-sounding
ballads like 'Bluebird' or arena-rock stuff like 'Jet', but both songs
do exactly what they're meant to do. 'Let Me Roll It' could actually be
a little more dynamic (if perhaps it wasn't Paul on drums), but it's a
good solid tune. 'Mamunia' is something I have to be in the mood for. 'Picasso's
Last Words' is, I think, one of Paul's best songs, though I think the second
half is pretty inconsistent.
Which brings me to the rest of the songs, which I can't really find any
fault with at all. I particularly like 'Nineteen Hundred And Eighty-Five'.
And I think Denny Laine made an important contribution with 'No Words'.
'Mrs. Vandebilt' is tremendously silly and catchy. And 'Band On The Run'
is simply a classic.
Now, I realize everybody sees a kinship between this album and Sgt.
Pepper because of the 'concept' elements, but I think it's more like
the Hard Day's Night album. After all, during his solo years, Paul
wasn't much for writing 'deep' songs, the way the Beatles were in their
late years. And the thing that always struck me about A Hard Day's Night
was that the songs were simple pop songs and they all sounded like a-sides.
And doesn't that describe Band On The Run?
Incidentally, 'Helen Wheels' (which is think is a great a-side - one of
Paul's best) was not on the British album. It was included on the American
album apparently to boost sales. The original British CD also did not include
the song. But the remastered CD and the 25th Anniversary Edition both include
it. The remastered CD also has a bonus track - 'Country Dreamer' - which
had been the b-side of 'Helen Wheels'. I think it's one of Paul's best
country ballads.
The 25th Anniversary Edition has a whole additional CD with a lot of excerpts
from the album interspersed with interview material with various people
involved with the recording and the album cover. It also includes a few
recordings that hadn't been previously released, the most interesting of
which are an acoustic version of 'Picasso's Last Words' and an alternate
mix of 'Helen Wheels'. There's also some demo excerpts of the title track,
a live version of 'Bluebird' from 1975, and several soundchecks and the
like from 1989 and 1993 of songs from this album. Generally, they're not
as good as the original versions.
Tammy-jo ennett <[email protected]> (18.10.2000)
This album is the McCartney and Wings album I've ever heard, also his most famous one too.My favourite songs on Band on the run are 'Mamnuia', 'Band on the run', 'Jet', 'Let me roll it' and 'Helen Wheels', this definitely sounds like it should've been a Beatles album, I have the version with the 2 remastered bonus tracks; 'Helen Wheels' and 'Country Dreamer'. 'Country Dreamer' sounds like it could've been from The White ALbum it's that good, Anyways, if you don't have this one, you should buy it soon, it's very addictive, Paul rocks!
Year Of Release: 1975
Record rating = 9
Overall rating = 13
Hard-rockin', experimentative and groovy. Why should this album be
worse than any other one in 1975?
Best song: ROCK SHOW
Probably the last 'classic' Wings album, it seems to be pretty obscure
among the general record-buying public, and it's a total shame. This is
McCartney's 'rocking' album: some of the tracks come close to heavy metal,
others are "glammy" beyond hope; in all, he was never as close
to becoming a full-fledged Rocker around that time. Indeed, there is only
one serious pop effort on this record: 'Listen To What The Man Said' was
a deserved hit but, in my opinion, it doesn't even give a slightest hint
at what this record is really about. It's nice, with a bouncy melody and
generic stupid lyrics ('soldier boy kisses girl/Leaves behind a tragic
world/But he won't mind/He's in love and he says love is fine'), but a
bit too mechanic and saccharine to me (even the so universally hated 'Silly
Love Songs' is more acceptable). I can't blame the melody - well, this
is Paul's peak period, and I can't blame any of the melodies on
this album - but I feel a bit uneasy about the dippy atmosphere, so incompatible
with the blasts of energy that come from one angle of the record and with
ultra-depressing, deeply emotional lyrical melodies that emerge from its
other angle.
The true strength of the album lies in its more serious elements. The concept
may go to hell as much as I care (actually, the concept is limited to the
opening title track - a clever acoustic ditty with impressive wordgames
about the meeting of two planets/two friends/two rock'n'roll heroes, as
well as its lengthier and more bombastic reprise on side B), but, anyway,
Paul never had the strength (the will? the guts?) to make a real conceptual
album - he only managed to fake one. The songs themselves are fine, though.
My favourite is the heavy rocker 'Rock Show' with some more experiments
in song structure and lots of interesting sections, ranging from resplendent
synth parts to generic hard riffage; the drive is simply incredible, the
lyrics are good (it's about Paul and his band going on tour), and
the swinging piano/synth/guitar/booming drums coda is better than 'Helter
Skelter'. Some are quick enough to condemn the song as a glam throwaway,
but it doesn't take a mental genius to see that the song is conceived and
structured as a hilarious parody on the entire glam rock movement,
but a parody that manages to combine amusing lyrics, thick solid riffs
and can be enjoyed on many different levels.
But that's not all, rockers also include 'Letting Go' - with a shattering
intro of roaring and soaring guitars and a fascinating break where the
guitars and saxes blend together reaching a magnificent climax. Wow! My
favourite moment on the record, bar none. Note also that the first thirty
seconds of this song completely justify Paul's reputation as one of the
best self-producers in the business. The manner in which he so swiftly
and yet so gradually builds up the tension is... well, suffice it to say
that it's typically characteristic of a person with a mind more flexible
and sensitive than the one of your average Neanderthalian. Not that you
see a lot of Neanderthalians these days, but then again, judging by the
quality of Prindle's reader comments on his Misfits page, you never know
when to trust your eyesight. Returning back to the topic - the build-up,
with layers of guitars slowly extending over each other and then with the
deep bass propelling itself and then with the deep synthline propelling
itself, is amazing.
Meanwhile, 'Medicine Jar' is an energetic anti-drug song (apparently, it's
not a Paul song - he generously allowed guitarist Jimmy McCullough throw
on some compositions, and this one sure ain't bad) which veers on punk,
although the lyrics look like they come from a health propaganda campaign.
And 'Spirits Of Ancient Egypt' is just memorable - it sounds like something
the Kinks could have easily recorded in the late Seventies, cuz it has
the same boom and rhythm pattern, but it's better than most of their efforts
since it's not as boring. Denny Laine penned it, and the guy was from the
Moody Blues, after all.
Plus, for 'traditional Macca lovers' there are some definitely luvly ballads
- 'Love In Song' is sad, ingenious and partially bombastic, but it's a
good kind of bombast - the Macca bombast. 'Treat Her Gently/Lonely Old
People' is even better, especially the latter - with moving lyrics about
old people and a suitable melody. Take it as a pessimistic antagonism to
'When I'm Sixty-Four' - what was Paul thinking about at the moment, I wonder?
'Here we sit, two lonely old people, and nobody asks us to play'. A rare
case of Paul in an exclusively gentle and truly compassionate mood.
Any surprises? Paul wouldn't be Paul if he hadn't prepared some nice surprises
for you. 'You Gave Me The Answer' is a retro Twenties-style lightweight
Hollywoodish number, and it even boasts a muddy production so as to make
it more 'genuine'. Well, it might be a re-run of 'Honey Pie', basically,
but it's given a more 'authentic' flair, so some might even like it better.
And the punchy, jerky 'Magneto And Titanium Man', as far as I can tell,
is a retelling of a comic strip (competition with 'Being For The Benefit
Of Mr Kite'?) 'Call Me Back Again' usually gets most of the arrows whistling
through the air - it's a rather unsuccessful take on a 'soul groove', but
somehow I never found it as offensive as most. Mayhaps that is due to the
fact that Paul doesn't even try to sound sincere on that one, and
it never struck me as 'fake', unlike all those Bowie treats on Young
Americans.
A really really really diverse and satisfying record, and certainly the
last in a series of 'greatest efforts' (although he managed to come close
one more last time on London Town). You can really feel Paul inviting
you in his own personal world - with all kinds of possible things going
on and where you might find everything to feed your desires. This record
is as diverse as practically any of the Beatles records (yes, and including
The White Album, too!) - maybe not as solid, but certainly just
as variegated. And nobody knows it. C'mon, people - shake your heads free
of that anti-ex-Beatles propaganda rubbish! This is not Phil Collins -
it's Paul McCartney, by gum! Catch it while it's hot!
Listen to what the man said and mail your ideas
Your worthy comments:
Josh <[email protected]> (24.05.99)
Y'know, for some reason, this album just isn't as great as it used to
be. It used to be my fav solo Beatle album, but now, I really can't say
that anymore. Granted, it IS great, but my thoughts toward it has mellowed
with time. To make the review brief, I'll just say that I love every single
song except "Magneto & Titanium Man". Sorta lame. I still
do love this album, just not as much as I used to
my rating-9 1/4
João Vargas <[email protected]> (26.12.99)
I won't say too much about this ablum because I don't like it very much. 'You Gave Me The Answer' is my favorite, and I like 'Rock Show' and 'Letting Go', but all the rest eem so formulaic that is doesn't do anything for me. I thing there are too many synths here, and it is, in contrast to most of Macca's albums, overproduced. A 7 out of 10.
Jeff Blehar <[email protected]> (09.02.2000)
No no no no no no no! This is REALLY disappointing coming off of Band
On The Run! While I won't go so far as Rolling Stone Magazine (bastards)
did, and say that Venus And Mars was one of the top ten Reasons
Why Punk Had To Happen, this is a big step down coming off of the last
album, with only ONE classic song ("Listen To What The Man Said")
and a few good ones ("Medicine Jar," "Rock Show," "Treat
Her Gently," perhaps). Otherwise, these songs are adequate at best
and truly annoying at worst. "Letting Go" and "Love In Song"
are probably the most salvageable of the remainders, but they really have
too little personality to be memorable, whereas the embarrasing "Magneto
And Titanium Man" is just cringe-inducing. As if the comic book story
wasn't puerile enough, the music is disgustingly bubblegummy, with this
"bompa, bompa, bompa, bompa" bassline that just epitomizes bad
taste. "You Gave Me The Answer" is actually somewhat charming,
but ultimately no more than a stylistic rewrite of "Honey Pie."
"Call Me Back Again" is phony hysterics, plastic soul that I
for one find far more unlistenable than David Bowie's near-contemporaneous
Young Americans moves, and "Spirits Of Ancient Egypt"
has "token Denny Laine vocal spot" written all over it.
That being said, "Listen To What The Man Said" is perhaps my
favorite of McCartney's pure-pop confections (a group which includes "My
Love," "Silly Love Songs," "With A Little Luck,"
and Ebony And Ivory"); the lyrics are sure dumb, but not disconcertingly
so (unlike "Let 'Em In"), and the SOUND, oh....that sound is
just so loverly, it's hard to argue with it. So sweet, and assured. It's
easily my favorite on this album. Shame McCartney didn't throw "Junior's
Farm" onto here, even as a bonus track, because it would've have significantly
increased its value (by the way, the bonus tracks are totally useless,
two instrumental B-sides and lame collaboration with The Meters). As it
is, I'm going to give it a 6/10. Harsh, yes, but justified, especially
because I feel like anyone who so shamelessly repeats themselves (Band
On The Run + New Orleans = Venus And Mars) better pull it off
near-perfectly or else prepare for criticism. That being said, Jimmy (not
Henry) McCullough's "Medicine Jar" is one goddamn fine rocker
(and GENUINE-sounding, unlike most of Paul's metal motions).
M.Gussekloo <[email protected]> (15.05.2000)
Hi, can I post my thoughts?
I think Venus and Mars is one of Paul's best solo albums, actually.
(although Flaming Pie and Band on the run are slightly better)
Maybe it's that spooky thing called "sentimental value" again,
but personally I think the opening is brilliant ('Venus&Mars' ends
with the rockin' 'Rockshow' song) and the rest of the album is just plain
good. The only bad mistake Paul made was "Listen what the man said"...
In my opinion far too optimistic and insanely happy. What I like best about
this album are the lyrics: they're very strange, and you can explain them
in various ways. Maybe Paul faked a concept-album, but he did it in style:
people with too much time on their hands (thats me) can imagine that the
dark, vague lyrics actually do tell a story. Absolute favorite song is
ofcourse 'Magneto & Titanium' man, because it tells another weird story
like the Beatles used to do. I read so many negative reviews about this
album, I just wanted to add my opinion for balance. Anyone who likes Paul
should buy Band on the run, and then start saving up for Venus
and Mars. They're allright tonight, ya know.. :)
Darren Bowers <[email protected]> (20.06.2000)
To be honest, I feel this album is one of the best solo efforts from McCartney. Although it's not as popular as Band On The Run, I still feel in certain ways its stronger musically. The reason for my optimism is that this album express what McCartney does best. He is the master of polished melodies and tight songs. This shows him at the peak of his game, making slight songs beautiful with changing time signatures, and playing meticulously tight arrangements. Highlights would include the excellent 'Listen To What The Man Said', 'Crossroads', the short ditty 'Venus And Mars', 'Medicine Jar', 'Rock Show', and the little gem 'Love In Song'. The over all fell of the album is a strange one. You get hints of funk, psychedelic, pre punk, and classic mercy beat sound. It's an album that I cant quit put my finger on. Yet it's still engaging in it's own right. Sure yea maybe Band On The Run has more pop and assessable melodies, but this album is reaching for new territory. It's using different influences and breaking new ground. This album has influenced the whole punk scene which would becoming soon. This album is very underestimated and it's very rewarding to the listener. Sure it has a few throw away's but what McCartney album doesn't. I think that this is the most interesting album from McCartney. If you don't like it the first time around, just listen to a few more times, it will grow on you.
<[email protected]> (08.08.2000)
And so, we get into the post-Band On The Run era. Paul has obviously
chosen to emulate the previous album with this one, another 'semi-concept'
album. And, as is usually the case when one tries to repeat one's biggest
success, this album pales in comparison. That's not to say it's a bad album.
In fact, I would probably rate it as Paul's third best, after Band On
The Run and Ram. Almost every song on here is memorable, with
perhaps the only exceptions being the last two: 'Treat Her Gently - Lonely
Old People' (which is decent enough, but a little dull) and 'Crossroads
Theme' (which is notably indistinct). When you consider that the song before
these two is 'Listen To What The Man Said', it kind of makes the album
seem like it's putting out towards the end. Oh sure, the big a-side from
this album is typically infectious and I walk around with it in my head
for the next two weeks, but the arrangement and performance render it into
sugar-coated muzak. Paul's music is often like a rich pastry: it's too
sweet and if you get too much of it, you just might throw up.
Which makes 'Magneto And Titanium Man' an odd track for me, because I really
enjoy listening to it. It's so damned infectious. And it's such an unabashed
bubble-gum tune that sometimes I just hate Paul for having come up with
it. I've also got a weakness for 'You Gave Me The Answer', which quite
convincingly captures the style of melody found in many films from the
thirties. In the hierarchy of such Paul tunes, I place it ahead of 'Honey
Pie', but not quite as high as 'When I'm Sixty- Four'. I'm not quite as
impressed with 'Rock Show', but it's kind of fun. I'd bet any decent Led
Zeppelin song could kick its ass, though. The slower tunes are all pretty
solid: 'Love In Song', 'Letting Go', 'Call Me Back Again'. And Jimmy McCulloch
turns in a halfway decent tune with 'Medicine Jar.' (It's refreshing to
hear all those drug lyrics on a record like this.) 'Venus And Mars' seems
a little silly, but it has nice bits.
My favorite song is 'Spirits Of Ancient Egypt', both because I've always
liked that kind of imagery in music, and because it seems to be the ballsiest
tune on the album. I also like Denny Laine's voice.
There have been at least three CDs of this album, the first one without
bonus tracks, and the second one and the remastered CD both containing
three. What we get is 'Zoo Gang' (a quirky and somewhat enjoyable instrumental
that was the British b-side to 'Band On The Run') and two unreleased tracks
from the Venus And Mars sessions that came out much later: 'Lunch
Box-Odd Sox' (a fairly pedestrian instrumental that turned up on the b-side
of 'Coming Up') and 'My Carnival' (a Mardi Gras-style tune that isn't all
that special from the b-side of 'Spies Like Us' - there was also a longer
'party mix' of this that is no longer available).
m.miller1 <[email protected]> (12.12.2000)
I think this album was crafted purposely to give wings some good 'rockin'
material to perform live. Whilst there is nothing wrong with any of the
songs in themselves, I think that they were very poorly produced, particularly in
comparison to Band On The Run, and the the great live renditions
to be found on wings over america. I dont see that much difference between
this album and at the speed of sound, they both sound very much
like 'made to order' albums filled with great pop songs (Listen to what
the man said / silly love songs), great mid-70's rockers ( 'Rock Show'
/ 'Beware My Love'), haunting tracks ('Love In Song' / 'The Note You Never
Wrote'), and nice ballads ('Treat Her Gently'/ 'Warm & Beautiful').
As with all of pauls albums, V&M could have been improved by the inclusion
of one of the preceeding singles, in this case the great Juniors Farm /
Sally G single. Its no Band on the run, but its all highly enjoyable all
the same.
Year Of Release: 1976
Record rating = 7
Overall rating = 11
A 'democratic' album. Which means you might just as well grab the
best songs on a compilation.
Best song: LET 'EM IN
Actually, it's not as hot any more. We all know Paul to be a despot
and Mr do-it-all-yourself, but, for no obvious reason, here he suddenly
proved himself feeble and allowed all the other members of the group to
throw in a hand - all of them, except for the drummer, I suppose
(who is still allowed to sing one of Paul's contributions). Yes, even Linda.
Paul himself is responsible for just about half of the songs on the album,
which therefore makes it Wings' Quick One, just to draw on a perfectly
sane Who comparison. The results are predictably poor, even though not
a catastrophe - Denny Laine and company were 'moderately skillful' songwriters,
and there's really little to twirl your nose at. Not much to jump about
in happiness as well, though.
What's even worse, Paul suddenly made a break in experimenting and genre-choosing
and stuck to a mainstream pop sound. Obviously, success was getting to
his head, with his albums finally making the big time and his sugary pop
singles like 'Listen To What The Man Said' making an even bigger time,
and so he puts a thick sugarcoat on the record, writing only one rocker
for the whole of it. What a rocker, though - the fast, screeching, anthemic
'Beware My Love' which is emotionally desperate as never before or after;
not only does Paul scream off his lungs, he also does this convincingly,
making the song something bigger than just a powerful groove like 'Rock
Show' or 'Jet'. I'd say that the overlong female chorus in the beginning
is a bit unnecessary - and apparently, Paul eventually felt the same, because
the live version of the song on Wings Over America cuts it out.
Apart from that, this is simply the wildest McCartney ever got since at
least 'Oh Darling', and hey, that was a looong time ago, now wasn't it?
The other originals are all pop - ranging from excellent to controversial
to horrible. That's actually the biggest problem with the album: McCartney
went here for an intentionally simplistic, 'elementary' approach, ditching
all the pseudo-experimentalism of Red Rose Speedway and the like,
and basically it's all a gamble. Where it succeeds, it succeeds really
fine. 'Let 'Em In', the album's hit single and arguably the album's finest
song, is built upon a descending/ascending cyclical piano line that's absolutely
brilliant, and gives this charming, unbeatable feeling of silly giddiness
that only McCartney knew how to master perfectly in his prime. And 'Silly
Love Songs', the album's other hit single, while it did serve as
a piece of red cloth for the critics (including even both Lennon
and Yoko Ono who gave out some sneering remarks on the subject), is equally
irresistable, with a bassline to kill for and wonderful three-part harmony
arrangements. The song's message was quite anthemic for Paul, too: 'Some
people want to fill the world with silly love songs - what's wrong with
that?'. Kinda reminds one of 'it's only rock'n'roll but I like it', doesn't
it? Funny how the critical type of public seems to react so negatively
towards these statements of pure sincerity.
On the other hand, the same simplistic approach also results in 'Warm And
Beautiful' - perhaps Paul's first major misstep in his entire career
of writing lightweight pop compositions. Sounding like something vaguely
reminiscing of Soviet pioneer anthems, the melody could have indeed been
written by a three-year old, and to make matters worse, Paul sings the
song with the intonation of a three-year old just beginning to learn
how to sing. One could hardly imagine a more anti-climactic ending to the
whole record. The soft, boppy 'San Ferry Anne' is somewhat more decent,
but it still sounds like an unbearably childlike ditty - and without an
ounce of that giggly humour that made most of Paul's previous childlike
ditties so cute and enjoyable. Trouble strikes! And when trouble strikes
with Sir Paul McCartney, well, that's definitely some kind of trouble.
A few quick words about the other contributors, now. Linda makes her 'songwriting/singing'
debut on 'Cook Of The House', an unpardonably crappy Fifties' throwback
tune in which she extolls her household virtues. Maybe she can cook,
but she sure can't sing. Or, at least, she can't sing lead vocals
- I really have nothing against her vocals in the background. Plus, the
song is really horrible, it does sound like 'cook rock' (hey, good expression
here). At least stuff like '3 Legs' was pure kitsch, which made it pardonable
- 'Cook Of The House' is definitely ugly in its absolute straightforwardness.
Denny Laine contributes the slightly catchier mid-tempo rocker 'Time To
Hide' (real moody atmosphere on that one), but my favourite is Henry McCulloch's
'Wino Junko': it's the only song that really catches the 'speed of sound'
on here, and even so, only near the end. It's silly and it's also about
drugs, but at least it's memorable... And somebody else's 'She's My Baby'
and 'The Note You Never Wrote' are also average, even though the latter
features a good guitar solo.
Average is the word here. None of the non-Paul band members' songs
- bar 'Cook Of The House', of course - really suck, but there are almost
no definite highlights. I would probably have rated it a six as it were,
but the absolutely undisputable quality of the three "really big"
numbers on the record - 'Let 'Em In', 'Beware My Love' and 'Silly Love
Songs', all timeless classics - manages to pump it up a bit. However, needless
to say, as an attempt to show the world that "Wings" are a real
multi-talented band, it fails miserably: it's still 'Paul and all these
other guys', however well you might put it. Heck, nobody except Paul can
really sing well, and even Paul seems to partially lose interest in songwriting.
He probably was much more preoccupied with controlling ticket sales at
the time - this was the period of his grandest tour ever...
The note you never wrote: mail your ideas now
Your worthy comments:
Josh <[email protected]> (16.05.99)
Underrated! This was the first Wings album I ever had, and it's good!
"The Note You Never Wrote" really can be spooky. "Beware
My Love" is a decent rocker, but way too long. This may come as a
shock to some people, but I seriously think "Time To Hide" is
Denny Laine's best song ever. While the lyrics leave something to be desired,
it has such a great tune!! It's also cool how it links into "Must
Do Something About It." About "Warm And Beautiful", it's
just really bland. Really the only instrument in it is a piano and a brief
guitar solo. "Cook Of The House" is silly, but I loved it when
I was 8 years old! I too love "Silly Love Songs". Especially
that weird intro. So this album is good, and at one point my favorite Wings
album!!! But then I bought Venus And Mars....................................
My rating-8
Jon Springer <[email protected]> (05.11.99)
Just a note -- I might have argued once upon a time that "Silly Love Songs" was a disaster, but I am finally convinced its one of his very best. One of Paul's most delightful bass lines ever. And what's wrong with that?
Mats Fjäll <[email protected]> (28.11.99)
Just gonna say that you should listen to the lyrics on 'Silly Love Songs'.
Some people says that this song is a message for John (and I sure don't
mean Elton!).
Steve Knowlton <[email protected]> (02.02.2000)
A few facts:
"Wino Junko" is sung by Jimmy McCullough (sp?), who replaced
Henry. "She's My Baby" is actually Paul singing. "Must Do
Something About It" is written by Paul, sung by drummer Joe English,
whose voice can't be too bad -- he's had a solo career in gospel music
for 20 years now.
Jeff Blehar <[email protected]> (09.02.2000)
Eeek! Wings' Greatest has almost completely obviated the need
for this album, but still not...quite... Arrgh. I hate that. No McCartney
album pre-1983 is COMPLETELY disposable, and this is no exception. But
this is certainly the weakest in his 70's studio output bar possibly Wild
Life. It's obvious that McCartney was recording this while on tour,
so he didn't have time to work up a fully successful batch of songs - Beatles
For Sale redux, anyone? So too much of this is either nondescript ("San
Ferry Anne," "She's My Baby," most of the other vocal spotlights
bar "Wino Junko") or flat-out painful ("Warm & Beautiful"
- it's bad enough, but WHY CLOSE THE ALBUM WITH IT PAUL?! Don't emphasize
the flaws! - and "Cook Of The House"). "Let 'Em In"'s
moronic lyrics bother the hell out of me, but I'm helpless to resist its
magnetic musical pull on my pleasure centers; stuff like this makes me
feel powerless, since I can't HELP but dig that piano line. Now I've never
really had a problem with "Silly Love Songs." I just don't see
what makes it anymore offensive than "My Love," for example.
In fact, it's quite brilliant. Look at how subtle and crafted it is. The
rhythm track is ingenious by itself, with all those rattles and clicks
resolving themselves into a underpinning (anyone think he was borrowing
from Pink Floyd's "Money" here?). Furthermore, the melody is
catchy (which is what we expect of McCartney) and the lyric takes a dig
at all his critics, which I suppose it why critics made a secret pact to
destroy its reputation. Also, the vocal layering is nifty, what with that
cool roundelay developing halfway through between McCartney, Laine, and
Linda. I like, and I think it even deserves to be six minutes long. A 6/10.
(10/15)
The best song on here (in my ever-subjective opinion, of course) is "Beware
My Love," and I'd like to mention a general point about McCartney
in relation to this ditty. In case you haven't heard it before, it's an
ear-pinning hard-rocker, opening with a spooky organ/vocal section and
a brightly-miked acoustic guitar pattern. It's impressive as all hell,
fairly complex in construction, and what's more, convincing. This last
point is the most important. I believe that McCartney is generally at his
absolute WORST when he's trying to "rock out" - he doesn't have
the voice for it (or rather, he does - go back to "I'm Down"
with The Beatles for confirmation - but he strangely doesn't usually sing
in it) - and what's worse, his *production* technique is usually all wrong
for it. In the studio McCartney has a tendency to emphasize treble frequencies
(strange for a bassist, but then McCartney was always a multi-instrumentalist)
and to lay on overdubs without mixing them down, leaving them sounding
hollow and disjointed, as if each instrument was playing in a different
room - the sound is technically correct, but the ensemble feel so fundamentally
important to a great rocker is all but absent. Perhaps this is less noticeable
on LP, but on digital CD it's very clear, and it's what makes songs like
"Rock Show" from Venus And Mars sound just the slightest
bit phony, where that slight bit of phoniness is all you need to sabotage
the feeling. Same thing for "Hi, Hi, Hi," another heavy number
from around the Red Rose Speedway era.
Farther down the page, George talks about how people always ignore the
"rocker" aspect of McCartney; not to give his critics too much
credit, but perhaps that's because his "hard rock" moves usually
sound forced, like he's only going throught the formal motions, without
any actual belief in the material. In a sense this ties into what I wrote
at the top of the page in the general comment section: McCartney's chief
failing is a deeper commitment to the formal perfections of any musical
style he's imitating than the more subtle emotional core which lies underneath.
To throw in a completely unnecessary Shakespeare quote, he's often "only
got the tune of the times," not the spirit. For an example of a rocker
that DOES work, "Medicine Jar" on Venus And Mars has a
much denser feel, and while its murky, that only helps it out; it sounds
like it's serious, and not just an experiment (possibly because Jimmy McCullough
was a drug addict himself). McCartney's a great pop-songwriter, even a
great mid-tempo rocker, but when he really tries to cut loose the results
are likely to be embarassing. All of which makes "Beware My Love"
so impressive, getting back to the topic at hand. For once the production
is pretty much spot-on, McCartney's in GREAT voice, and everything gels.
But this is a rare exception in the McCartney canon. Notice how he never
really tried to rock out again after this? It's just pop songs all the
way up to Flaming Pie (Back To The Egg excepted, I suppose)
from here.
[Special author note: I believe
I'll just have to confront dear Jeff on that one, because he's touched
a very painful little spot on here. I don't mean the album, of course (give
it a six or a seven - who really cares), but about Paul's general inability
to 'hard-rock'. Basically, if I understand it right, what Jeff is doing
here is accusing Paul of the following two (interrelated) sins: (a) Paul
ruins the feeling necessary for a good rocker by approaching it with the
tendency to overproduce: his 'technologies' are overtly professional and
exclude any possible 'sloppiness', which makes the tunes in question sound
slick, smooth and, ultimately, phoney; (b) Paul betrays the criterium of
'sincerity' - creating hard rockers which he doesn't believe in; according
to the Ten Commandments of Rock, this is an oxymoron. I understand that
position, but do not agree with it.
In the long run, what really matters for a solid rocking number is not
the production, but its musical essence. I believe that both Paul and John
(and even George, to a certain extent) could rock out very well, all choosing
a separate style of their own. George's 'rocking' sound (for All Things
Must Pass, primarily) was based on multiple guitar overdubs, which
rendered it bombastic and towering; John's 'rocking' sound (for the most
part of his solo career) was based on special effects (echoes, etc.) plus
a heavy use of brass section; finally, Paul's 'rocking' sound was based
on loudness, blatant 'metallisms' and a powerful rhythm section, esp. drums.
All of these styles do not really fit in our perception of a classic 'rockin'
band' like the Stones or the Who - for us, to 'rock' means to play dirty,
crunchy riffs at a fast enough speed, primarily emphasizing the 'isolated'
guitar sound. Taking it too far, one might say that if it's easy to replicate
a 'rocking' tune with just your average four-piece bar band (of course,
if they have the necessary chops), then it's 'authentic'; if it isn't,
then it's 'phoney'.
IMHO, that's a very narrow-minded approach; after all, rock music is primarily
valuable to me because it never fits in a single pattern. (Same thing goes
for people who bash progressive rock claiming that it loses the 'spirit'
of real rock'n'roll. So what? There are different spirits in this world,
not to mention those of Ancient Egypt...). Anyway, I was speaking about
Paul: I don't mind if his 'rockers' are too slick and overproduced as long
as they (a) have a catchy, memorable melody (and few Macca rockers do not
have that melody), (b) are well-performed and (c) feature something original,
experimental, innovative, well, you get my drift. 'Rock Show' off Venus
And Mars, for instance, is a great example of such a performance.
True, it's easy to understand the critics who disliked Paul's rock attitudes
- but this stems from their personal limitations, and unwillingness to
accept anything beyond a specified formula. And believe me, Paul's hard-rocking
tracks are not at all forced: they're not any more forced than his ballads
or basically anything he's writing at any selected point. They seem forced
as long as you compare them to bands that fit our standard perceptions
of a 'rock band', but they stand out loud and proud on their own. Don't
believe me? Try rearranging any selected Macca rocker in your mind
and imagining how it could sound in the hands of, say, the Rolling Stones
or even Mott the Hoople. You'll be pleasantly surprised.
Now onto the second point. One could indeed accuse these rock numbers of
being insincere, which Jeff does when he's quoting Shakespeare.
But how come these hard rockers are less sincere than, say, 'Ram On'? Or
'Picasso's Last Words'? Or 'Mrs Vanderbilt'? Or 'She's My Baby'? The big
problem with Paul, as with quite a few other notorious artists like David
Bowie, is that he rarely cares about emotion or about songs coming 'from
the heart'. I already hinted at that in the intro paragraph and I'm not
going to discuss the thing in details. The point is - Paul's rockers totally
fit in his overall style ('style', though, not 'formula' - he doesn't have
a 'formula'). One has to value them for what they are: providing
loads of interesting, often brilliant melodies, and eventually engaging
you in their flow. This is what makes a McCartney rocker, as 'generic'
or 'phoney' as it is, stand out from the endless sludge provided by, say,
Rod Stewart in the late Seventies: where Rod is definitely more suited
to singing rock songs and he's often able to cut it with just the strength
of his voice alone, the melodies that he used to write or accept
from outside writers are utterly pedestrian and derivative.
As for why McCartney eventually stopped writing hard-rocking songs - I
think it has more to do with his engulfment in new, modernistic Eighties'
technologies and decline into the most stupid aspects of synth pop on the
way than with his disappointment in the results (although the poor sales
of Back To The Egg possibly had something to do with that). Note
that on Off The Ground Paul made a 'hard-rocking comeback', with
at least one classic result - 'Biker Like An Icon', dumb lyrics aside,
is one of his best contributions in the genre.]
<[email protected]> (09.08.2000)
I'm hard-pressed to think that Wings was actually losing ground with
this album. It sounds virtually as good as Venus And Mars to my
ears. For the third album in a row, they came up with a collection of songs
that are all at least fairly good. There are really no clunkers here. There
are, however, some songs I'd rather not listen to. 'Silly Love Songs',
the massive hit, is typically infectious (though not as much as some of
Paul's previous hits), but it's little more than muzak. And as far as the
counterpoint vocals go, I stopped being impressed on the second listen
- which was back in 1976. 'She's My Baby' is another cute little song with
nothing wrong with it, but I'd rather pass on it. 'Warm And Beautiful',
I think, has a pretty nice melody, but it gets a little dull. 'Cook Of
The House' suffers mostly from Linda's voice. The song itself isn't so
bad, but it kind of reminds me of 'Death Cab For Cutie' from the Magical
Mystery Tour film. Jimmy McCulloch has another pretty decent outing
with 'Wino Junko', which is of course about drugs, and which also has some
interesting production details. Joe English turns out to be a pretty solid
vocalist on 'Must Do Something About It', which has a nice verse, but kind
of a dumb chorus and a really dumb ending. 'San Ferry Anne' sounds pretty
good to me, but it seems it could have been better if Paul had kept working
on it. 'Let 'Em In' sounds like something Paul must have sung for his kids.
Yeah, that's it. I won't have to feel embarrassed about liking it if I
think of it as a children's song. It really is infectious, though in this
case it's more because of the chords than the melody. It conjures up quite
a haunting mood.
Then there's the songs which I think are the best on the album. 'Beware
My Love' starts off a little weakly, but otherwise it's a pretty strong
outing. The other two songs are both sung by Denny Laine, 'The Note You
Never Wrote' (which has a great atmosphere to it) and 'Time To Hide' (which
Laine wrote himself, and almost puts Paul's material on here to shame).
The original CD and the remastered CD have the same bonus tracks, and they
all come from 1974, between Band On The Run and Venus And Mars,
and were all recorded in Nashville. The first two are both instrumentals
which were released as a single by a group called The Country Hams (but
it was, of course, Wings). The a-side was a tune Paul's dad (Jim McCartney)
wrote in the old days called 'Walking In The Park With Eloise'. I find
this to be a really enjoyable tune - it sounds like what you'd hear if
you were walking up Main Street in one of the Disney parks, straight out
of the turn of the century. The b-side to that was 'Bridge Over The River
Suite' which is a bluesier instrumental with an inner city jazzy feel.
The third bonus track is 'Sally G', a great country ballad which was originally
the b-side of 'Junior's Farm' (which is unfortunately not included here).
A few months after release, however, the sides were switched, and 'Sally
G' became the a-side.
Technical point about the Wings lead guitarists: Henry McCullough played
from 1972 to 1973; Jimmy McCulloch played from 1974 to 1977.
Year Of Release: 1976
Record rating = 7
Overall rating = 11
A triple live-album. 'Nuff said.
Best song: forget it. I'm not even gonna try.
Ah, here is finally the actual proof that McCartney really dug prog.
This is a triple live album, see? He's clearly steering his boat in the
direction of Yessongs and Welcome Back My Friends! (Of course,
Harrison's Bangla Desh also was triple, but that was just in order
to record the whole concert). Two major differences, though. First, prog
rock had just died a peaceful and natural death - or at least it was in
the process of dying; likewise, the great glammy show of the early Seventies
were beginning to stink as well. And yeah, this was McCartney's first major
Wings tour, so I understand that he simply didn't have the possibility
to release such a record earlier; but it remains a fact that Wings Over
America was an even more suitable pick for the critics' axes than the
preceding studio album, so even if it hit the charts in a major way, it
also seriously soured down Paul's reputation.
Second, this album doesn't sound like prog rock at all. It's just a 'monumental'
live album reflecting a hugely successful stadium glam-rock tour. It has
an airplane on the cover (although one might be slow to realize it) so
as to remind you this was a really huge event, and nobody's gonna
doubt it, of course.
Question is: do the songs really match the packaging? Well, yes, of course
they do. But then another question is: does the playing match the songs?
Well, no, of course it doesn't! Lots of tricks which made them sound so
intriguing in the studio are just plain lost in this context. But that's
not because Paul and company are trying to change the melodies around -
on the contrary, according to the good old Beatles tradition, they try
to reproduce the originals as faithfully as possible. Yet they fail. Which
results in a plain understandable conclusion: essentially, this album is
only recommendable to huge McCartney fans who can't get enough of him.
In fact, all of his live albums suffer the same fate. Buy them only after
you get everything else (I mean, everything good).
On the good side, though, Wings Over America seems to be standing
up to time far better than all of Paul's later love records. The primary
reason is that for the most part, Paul sticks to Wings material - out of
the huge setlist, only five songs are taken from the Beatles catalog, and
even out of these five, there are a couple pleasant surprises like 'I've
Just Seen A Face' and 'Blackbird', which McCartney never played live again,
as far as I know. Well, the three other numbers are 'Lady Madonna', 'The
Long And Winding Road' and 'Yesterday', of course, three stage favourites
- but even these were only bastardized and banalized on the latter day
tours, and they don't spoil the impression that much.
Everything else is pure Wings - including not only predictable hits, like
the big numbers off Speed Of Sound, 'Listen To What The Man Said'
and 'Band On The Run', but also lots and lots of more obscure material
which, again, was never played live after that. For starters, the band
reproduces Venus And Mars almost in its entirety, which gives an
extra boost to lovers of that particular underrated album. And while I
could complain a lot about what's missing here (no numbers from Ram
and nothing but 'My Love' off Red Rose Speedway, eek), it's really
a silly thing to do. Who am I, McCartney's tutor or something?
Plus, after repeated listenings some of the stuff really begins disclosing
itself in a better way; while few of these songs could even hope to surpass
the studio versions, most of them add at least a little 'additional twist'
which is quite a value in itself once you get used to it. Thus, 'Rock Show'
and 'Jet' are excellently merged together in one ten-minute medley. 'Spirits
Of Ancient Egypt' and 'Beware My Love' are both graced by rip-roaring guitar
solos from Jimmy McCulloch. The minimalism of 'Let Me Roll It' is broken
by a few mean, pseudo-metallic lead guitar lines. 'Bluebird' is decorated
with a very pretty, romantic acoustic introduction. 'Time To Hide' somehow
assumes a lot of power, with a heavy emphasis on the thumping bassline.
'Listen To What The Man Said', when devoid of the corny vocal overdubs,
sounds more natural on stage than the syrupy studio version. And it's funny
to hear the audience clapping their hands along to the steady piano roll
of 'Let 'Em In'. Of course, sometimes these changes come out in a bad way
- 'Medicine Jar', for instance, has Jimmy McCulloch play a monotonous wah-wah
solo which almost obliterates the subtle climactic effect of the original,
and 'Letting Go' is reduced to a miserable joke without the dark echoey
production. But what the heck, you can't make an omelette without breaking
eggs...
Finally, there are a few surprises waiting for the uninitiated. A brief
snippet of 'Picasso's Last Words' leads us into Denny Laine singing an
acoustic version of Paul Simon's 'Richard Cory' (and scoring an extra point
by adlibbing '...and I wish that I could be - John Denver!'). Silly, but
funny, and it also gives an idea of how Denny got the idea of writing 'Deliver
Your Children'. He is also given the opportunity to perform his eternal
Moody Blues hit, 'Go Now', which is overblown and overdrawn, but is still
tolerable. Finally, this is the only place where you'll find 'Soily', another
one of Paul's 'experimental' series of rockers (like 'The Mess' in the
bonus tracks to Red Rose Speedway). Frankly speaking, I don't know
what the hell you could actually need it for, but there it is, and if you're
generous enough, you might as well take it.
In all, time has slightly embettered my initial feelings towards the record
- of course, it still remains a fact that Paul is one of the least capable
live players in the rock world, but if he ever did something worthwhile
on the stage, most of this would be captured on Wings Over America.
Plus, it's a great choice to take with you on a holiday in your CD player.
I know I did. Enjoy yourselves.
Hi hi hi, mail me your ideas
Your worthy comments:
Jeff Blehar <[email protected]> (09.02.2000)
I'll keep this short. One word: why? McCartney's a completely unrevelatory live performer, the songs are functional if unspectacular renditions, and there are no alarms and no suprises here, except stupid ol' "Richard Cory" (bad poem = bad song) and the silly "Soily." No one needs a Wings live album (even if this one spent something like a lifetime at the top of the charts back in 1977. THIS album is why punk had to happen!), and I've listened to this all of twice in my life. Go buy Red Rose Speedway or Ram instead. Better yet, go get Live At Leeds or Under A Blood Red Sky. Now THOSE are essential live albums! This ain't. 3/10.
<[email protected]> (09.08.2000)
At this point, I'm gonna have to disagree with both George and Jeff.
While I'm not exactly jumping for joy while listening to this album, I
would still rate it as highly as Venus And Mars (which is almost
all here) and Speed Of Sound. If I wanted to save my money and choose
between buying this or buying those two studio efforts, I'd get this one.
And for a very simple reason. The songs just sound better this way. Particularly
the rocked-up tunes, which always suffered on the studio albums from what
John Lennon once described as the 'dead Beatles sound'. That is, since
everything was recorded separately, there really isn't much of a 'band
sound' on the Wings records (somehow, the Beatles records tended to sound
pretty good anyway). Even though much of the recording for this album was
done in the studio (a much more common practice than most people think),
it still has a live sound, and the band sounds more like they're all in
one place - because, after all, they are.
While I'm not a big 'Rock Show' fan, I definitely think it sounds better
here than on the studio version, and the segue into 'Jet' is pretty dramatic.
'Spirits Of Ancient Egypt' also sounds better here. 'Let Me Roll It' is
a bit more dynamic, now that a good drummer like Joe English is playing
on it rather than Paul. 'The Long And Winding Road' (which I really don't
like as a song) is actually presented here the way I imagine McCartney
wanted it - without the gooey orchestrations. 'Picasso's Last Words' sounds
great - and without all the 'reprises' from the studio version. 'Listen
To What The Man Said' is more lively and doesn't have some of the really
sickening stuff attached to it. 'Magneto And Titanium Man' is a bit rockier.
'Hi Hi Hi' is way better here than on the single. And most of the other
songs are either as good as the original versions, or at least reasonably
close. It does seem, however, that Paul is racing right through 'Lady Madonna'
and plays 'Blackbird' a bit flippantly. At least one of the 'surprises'
is actually pretty good. Personally, I think 'Richard Cory' has pretty
solid lyrics (although I wonder what Paul Simon thought of Denny Laine
inserting John Denver's name into the lyrics). The sequence with 'Picasso's
Last Words' and 'Richard Cory' is one of my favorite moments on the album.
The version of 'Go Now' included here sounds at least okay to me. And then
there's 'Soily', which is really just another murky Wings rocker with little
going for it.
I would like to point out one notable difference between this and the later
live albums Paul put out. It's mostly Wings material. There are only five
Beatles songs. On his later tours, about eighty per cent of the material
was Beatles stuff. But Wings were quite a popular band in the seventies,
even if modern audiences are more nostalgic for the Fabs.
Sergey Zhilkin <[email protected]> (07.12.2000)
I don't really know why but I don't like this album very much. The songs
are very good and you can easily take Wings over America as a compilation.
But the quality of performance is simply bad (I wonder if this concert
was held on a stadium). You know, on some concerts singer's voice is too
low and instruments are too loud, on some live albums voice is too loud
and instruments are too low. But here we get bad vocal plus, I'm not afraid
of this word, crappy (but only on the first six tracks) guitarwork ('Medicine
jar' was totally ruined by 12-string guitar). One of the best Paul's songs
'Maybe I'm amazed' suffers (!!!) from Paul's vocal. Really, he sometimes
misses the time he should start singing. Though, I must admit that the
middle part is fantastic (suddenly Paul's voice became better). He (or
someone from his band) even sings 'Richard Cory'. Then we face another
beautiful song - 'Bluebird'. You know, I never liked the original on 'Band
on the run' because of it's sweetness. But this version is really romantic
and moving one (maybe even the best song on this album, though it was VERY
hard to define). A little bit faster version of 'Magneto and Titanium man'
(many critics dismiss it as a childish happy song but I find here very
interesting story) is good, too. 'Magneto' is followed by second cover:
'Go now'. I didn't hear the original but I find this song rather cute.
Unfortunately, the quality of sound falls down in 'My love' (or is it all
because of bootleg copy?) and in some other songs, too (just take 'Time
to hide' as a clear example). The last number on the record is crappy 'Soily'
which (oh, thank you, Lord!) wasn't included into any studio albums. Oh,
I forgot about 'Letting go' (faster than original) which is great.
Still, as I said before, I don't care much Wings over America maybe
because I don't like satisfactory live albums. Nothing to talk about: it's
too ordinary to praise and too satisfactory to dismiss. Well, 6/10 is enough.
Year Of Release: 1978
Record rating = 8
Overall rating = 12
Return to form? Well, at least this sounds more intriguing and tasteful
than the one before...
Best song: DELIVER YOUR CHILDREN
Ah! Better! Sure, the number of sweety pop songs is larger than on the
1974-5 releases, but, anyway, who are we speaking of? Slayer? On the other
hand, this album adds an interesting side to Paul: his newly-found Englishness.
Previous efforts like 'Mary Had A Little Lamb' don't count, of course:
they were deliberately naive and and clumsy. Here he suddnely starts to
milk this Brit persona with such a frenzy you'd thought he just left the
Kinks or something. The title track, 'Famous Groupies', 'Morse Moose And
The Grey Goose', 'Cafe On The Left Bank', 'Children Children' all qualify,
and in this respect I'd say that London Town is indeed the closest
Paul ever got to a conceptual album. Not that all of these songs are good,
mind you. Apparently seeing that Speed Of Sound was somewhat lame,
McCartney suddenly immerged himself in such furious waves of experimentation
that some of these ditties are downright unlistenable - especially 'Morse
Moose And The Grey Goose': six minutes plus of punkish shouting over generic
disco backing just don't move me at all.
But the naive pop songs, having acquired that 'nursery rhyme' hook, suddenly
turn out to be charming - 'Children Children' is lightweight but catchy
and sincerely gentle, while 'Girlfriend' steps in with a wonderful falsetto
and smacks it up with a great guitar solo before ending in some great vocal
harmonies. The best known songs are the hit 'With A Little Luck' (to my
ears, it's easily the most uninteresting track on here, with an obvious
commercial sound, even though it is certainly listenable) and the slightly
more obscure but much more pleasant title track. Oh, and don't forget the
beautiful ballad 'I'm Carrying' on which Paul shows that he's still master
of the acoustic and he don't need no filthy synths to make a great song
(unfortunately, that all changed in just a couple of years).
There's plenty of bizarre stuff on here, too, like 'Backwards Traveller'
with its spacey beat, and the instrumental 'Cuff Link' which is built around
a tight little melody played with a wah-wah or, more likely, some cunning
synthesizers imitating a wah-wah. 'Famous Groupies' is blatant retro with
hilarious lyrics, and 'Name And Address' is just something you'd like to
shake your hips to - Paul goes for something like a Gene Vincent sound
on here. 'Don't Let It Bring You Down' has some cool guitar effects which
will probably move you to tears, and 'I Had Enough' is just your basic
rocker (not a very good one).
That said, I'd like to focus your attention on what I think is the absolutely
best song on here, and moreover I rate it among Macca's most brilliant
and astonishing work of all time. The fast, acoustic-driven 'Deliver Your
Children' is a bitter pessimistic anthem with strange, sad and plaintive
lyrics one wouldn't really expect from Paul, but somehow it works just
perfectly. The rhythm pounds at you, the lyrics feel genuine, the singing
(Denny Laine's? hardly sounds like Paul) is moving, and the acoustic solo
at the end is highly professional and emotional. Indeed, this is probably
the only successful effort at a tearin' pessimistic 'tired-of-life-type'
song ever done by Paul; 'Little Lamb Dragonfly' stands close, but it's
more of a psycho effort, while 'Deliver Your Children' has straightforward
lyrics a la Ray Davies and it is still great. As far as I know, it isn't
available on any hit compilations, so you might just as well get the whole
album for that one song. It'll be worth it.
With a little luck, I could easily post your ideas
Your worthy comments:
João Vargas <[email protected]> (26.12.99)
A great album, with some of Macca's best writing. I agree with you on 'Deliver Your Children': GREAT SONG! Paul's falsetto on 'girlfriend' is very nice. I like 'Backwards Traveller' and 'London Town'. This album sounds like Paul decided to do a sorrt of acoustic album, but then threw in a lot of experimentation and synthesizers. One song from this period that really deseved to be here was 'waterspout', probably Paul's best unreleased song, besides 'Yvonne'. this album gets and 8.
Jeff Blehar <[email protected]> (09.02.2000)
This one is soft, soft, soft, yet strangely endearing. Other than "I've
Had Enough" there's not a real rock number to be found anywhere here
(the Elvis-Presleyisms of "Name And Address" aside, and that's
retro-rock anyway), so beware.
That being said, I really enjoy this one lots, and I'm really happy George
singled-out "Deliver Your Children," which is easily the best
song on the album and Denny Laine's finest moment as a writer with Wings.
I won't add to it since he's done a fine job of capturing its essence.
On London Town the order of the day is experiment, experiment, experiment,
and despite the possibilities for disaster (and despite "Morse Moose
And The Grey Goose") McCartney seems to have pulled off quite well.
"Backwards Traveller" is a heap of fun, with that tape-echoed
and reversed "h-h-h-h-HEY, don't you know that I'm/always going back
in time," and "Cuff Link" is an enjoyable instrumental.
I really like "Cafe On The Left Bank" (and that's the Left Bank
of the Seine in Paris, George, not the Thames - a famous hipster hangout
akin to New York City's Grenwich Village). "London Town" and
"With A Little Luck" are the big singles and they're very similar
(in fact, this is where you'll get that overwhelming "soft" vibe
from the album), but I prefer "London Town" with its evocative
depictions of time and place: "People pass me by on my imaginary street/Ordinary
people it's impossible to meet/Holding conversations that are always incomplete"
- hey! Waitasec! That's a great little lyric! HE COULD DO IT IF HE WANTED,
he was just messing with us all these years! And now onto "With A
Little Luck"...oh...wait, I guess he can't do it after all. These
lyrics are the same ol' horseshit, and while the song is quite listenable
and even catchy WHILE you're listening, you'll be hard pressed to remember
much of it after it's over. There are a bunch of other little gems here
("Girlfriend," which Michael Jackson might've done better,"
"Children, Children," "I'm Carrying," "Don't Let
It Bring You Down") but I won't go into them all; I've got a feeling
people are tired of reading my damn comments. Just want to give a fair
warning: this is a sedate album. Don't expect anything like Band On
The Run or even anything as bouncy as Red Rose Speedway. Unwind
to it. 7/10.
<[email protected]> (17.08.2000)
It seems like an intriguing idea that these guys would go for a more
mellow approach after their recent excursions into arena-rock. Unfortunately,
the material here sounds mostly mediocre to me. I'll agree with George
that the best song here is definitely 'Deliver Your Children' (although
they could've slowed the tempo down just a tad). Musically and lyrically,
it's just damn solid material, with lots of catchy guitar runs linking
the chords. In fact, my second favorite song on here is another that Denny
Laine collaborated on - 'Children Children', which has some nice textures
and a decent Irish folk-song melody. 'Don't Let It Bring You Down' is a
pretty solid tune, but perhaps a little dull. The other two Laine collaborations
don't hold up as well: 'London Town' (which has some good ideas mixed with
a couple of really dumb melodic things - particularly when they get to
the word 'flute') and 'Morse Moose And The Grey Goose' (which is at least
an interesting track - but the 'Morse Moose' section is just sort of obnoxious).
Among the tracks McCartney wrote on his own (or were they with Linda?),
my favorite is 'Name And Address' - which I'm a little embarrassed to admit,
since I get a little weary of Paul's excursions into long-lost musical
styles. In this case, he gives us a thoroughly entertaining (and catchy)
imitation of Freddie Mercury imitating Elvis. 'Backwards Traveller' sounds
like it could have been a good song if only the second half of it had been
written. 'Famous Groupies' has some nice melodic bits and a few funny lines,
but it suffers from McCartney's typically obnoxious delivery.
Then there's the rest, which are all solid pieces of songwriting, but which
don't do a hell of a lot for me: 'With A Little Luck' (I do kind of like
the cushion of synths on this one - surprising as that is to me - but the
tune is nothing more than muzak with words); 'Cafe On The Left Bank' (maddeningly
memorable, but for some reason I just don't like it); 'I've Had Enough'
(sounds like a typical generic fifties rocker from Paul - I'm not impressed);
'I'm Carrying' (this just sounds really dull to me); 'Cuff Link' (a moderately
enjoyable instrumental).
The original CD also includes 'Girls' School' as a bonus track, which is
another rocker. I'd rate it higher than 'I've Had Enough' in any case.
The remastered CD also includes 'Mull Of Kintyre' from the other side of
that single (the a-side in most of the world, but the b-side in the US).
For me, this song shines above everything on the album. The writing and
arrangement are among the best McCartney ever pulled off. Oh, and look
- Denny Laine collaborated on it.
Sergey Zhilkin <[email protected]> (21.10.2000)
Wonderful! This is only Paul's album that moves me to tears. So soft
in the beginning and so sad in the end... 'Deliver your children' and 'Don't
let it bring you down' make me cry every time I hear them. Most of songs
such as 'Girlfriend', 'Morse moose and the grey goose', 'Deliver you children',
'Don't let it bring you down', 'Cafe on the left bank' and 'Backwards traveller'
(half-finished song but it has something moving inside) are real little
worlds which are funny and sad at the same moment. Surely there's filler,
but it's still enjoyable! Just look: 'Children, children', 'I've had enough'
('Smile away vol.2'), 'Famous groupies' and 'London town' are simple but
good, too. Well, I even enjoy Paul singing:' If you want my love/ Give
your name and address'. All songs are very good! And don't forget about
bonus tracks ('Girl's school' and 'Mull of Kintyre') are splendid.
Paul said in his interview that he didn't want to make Sgt. Pepper's
lonely hearts club band vol.2 but it's clear that all songs are connected
with each other. This record is true no revolution but I insist on 10/10
mark (with bonus tracks).
Year Of Release: 1979
Record rating = 7
Overall rating = 11
An unusually energetic and furious album, but it also loses some
of McCartney's identity.
Best song: OLD SIAM SIR
The last Wings album. They disbanded shortly afterwards, after Paul
had done a short term for transporting pot in Japan. Not that I really
care, but then again, if Denny Laine had still been sticking around, maybe
the next album wouldn't have turned out so gruesome. But let us stop this
digression and get back to, err, basically, the egg. Just like London
Town, this one shows Paul still sucking in modern influences, but it
also shows Paul relinquishing that tricky Brit path and retreading to more
mundane matters. There's the usual shred of conceptuality, but this time
around it's not very original - the album is presented as a radio broadcast
(it opens with transistor noises, before venturing into the funky 'Reception').
Maybe that's what the title is about - getting back to the standard formulas
laid out by so many rockers years before? But then again, what are disco
and punk doing here? Because the gorgeous ballad 'Arrow Through Me' sounds
a bit like disco, and the speedy rocker 'Spin It On' is undeniably punk.
What 'egg' are we speaking about?
Bizarre. There's a lot more heavy rockers on here than on any previous
albums bar Venus and Mars, but they're not very effective, with
one notable exception: 'Old Siam Sir' just shakes the cat out of the barrel,
both literally and figuratively. It begins with a mean-sounding, dirty-looking
riff and soon afterwards transforms itself into a magnificent heavy guitar
symphony with wave after wave of roaring sound crushing down upon the listener
before he scurries for shelter towards the soothing 'Arrow Through Me'.
However, the other rockers don't do that much: 'Rockestra Theme' was a
mammoth experiment of forming a 'rockestra' out of tons of famous and not
so famous guitarists, but they don't solo or display their talents or anything
- they just play the same sequence over and over again, and really, there
was no need of getting Townshend, Gilmour, Page and others in this heap,
cuz it might just as well have been done by amateurs. Or by computers.
Rock'n'roll isn't meant to be orchestrated type of music, and luckily Paul
wasn't eager to repeat his experiment.
So, even if the rockers are for the most part ineffective, the pop numbers
still catch you by the tail. The medley 'After The Ball/Million Miles/Winter
Rose/Love Awake' may not stand the test of time, being somewhat shallower
and more banal than the beautiful medley that closes off Red Rose Speedway,
but it has its moments, nevertheless: and it's at least memorable throughout.
I've already mentioned 'Arrow Through Me', and nobody should bypass the
pretty acoustic throwaway 'We're Open Tonight (For Fun)' (which I've always
been mishearing as 'we're open tonight, orphan'). It's throwaway,
but it's beautiful.
In fact, the only track that infuriates me on the whole record is Denny
Laine's loathsome contribution 'Again And Again And Again'; not that it
boasts a particularly bad melody, but it sure features particularly crappy
lyrics which are so thrown around in yer face it makes you wanna shove
them back into Denny's throat. 'You don't wanna stay in my school/You don't
wanna be the one that's cool/don't want to be the little woman/I love.'
Tough case. Tough crowd. But don't despise the album just because Denny's
a zero songwriter (which isn't true anyway). It's been badly underrated
both in the press and by fans, to my mind. Anyway, it's better than Wings
At The Speed Of Sound, and that's something.
We're open tonight, so mail your ideas
Your worthy comments:
João Vargas <[email protected]> (26.12.99)
Paul more hard rocking here. There are maybe 4 good tracks ('Old Siam Sir', 'Again and Again and Again', 'Winter Rose/Love Awake') and the rest are pretty boring. Paul tries to do some hard rocking, but his songwriting just isn't up to par. A 7 out of 10.
Myris Collett <[email protected]> (29.01.2000)
this album could have been alot better. should have included 'daytime nighttime suffering' and 'goodnight tonight'. should have deleted 'baby's request'.
<[email protected]> (27.08.2000)
And so, after the last effort, in which Wings went for a more laid-back
approach and wallowed in mediocrity, we now have a bona fide rock 'n' roll
album that accomplishes the same thing. It seems that Paul still had the
tools for writing well- crafted pop music, but just wasn't making the most
of them. Perhaps the most impressive melody on here is 'Arrow Through Me',
which I have to admit is really quite good, but it isn't really the kind
of music I like to listen to. I'd say the same for 'Getting Closer.' The
only other real stand-out here is 'Baby's Request'. Paul always got the
most melodic mileage out of these kinds of songs, and it's probably my
favorite track on the album.
Which is a shame, since - being a rock fan - my favorite song should be
a rock song. But the rock songs on here aren't that good. 'Spin It On'
at least is kind of interesting to listen to. It's funny, though - like
a lot of other 'dinosaurs', Paul tries to play punk rock while forgetting
the most crucial element of punk: rawness. The performance is just too
damned professional! The Rockestra tunes ('So Glad To See You Here' and
'Rockestra Theme') are both fairly disappointing. The new-wavish 'To You'
gets a little too obnoxious for my liking.
Then there's the slower tracks: 'Winter Rose' has a nice, sort of haunting
melody, without being too incredible, but it segues into 'Love Awake',
which is a rather unexceptional ballad. 'We're Open Tonight' sounds like
it could have been a better tune, but sounds somewhat unfinished. 'After
The Ball' is over-blown gospel, but I kind of like how it goes into 'Million
Miles' (although I have a hard time picturing the richest ex-Beatle out
in the cotton fields). I can't seem to muster up any genuine interest in
'Again And Again And Again' or 'Old Siam, Sir', but there doesn't seem
to be anything terribly wrong with them. I fail to see what the point of
'The Broadcast' is. The music is more or less nothing, and the narrator
reading the poetry doesn't affect me whatsoever. Maybe there's a story
behind this that would make it more interesting. And 'Reception' sounds
more like a studio mix than a radio dial being fiddled with.
Then there's the bonus tracks: 'Daytime Nightime Suffering' (the b-side
of 'Goodnight Tonight') is pretty much unimpressive pop music. 'Wonderful
Christmastime' is - well, okay, it's kinda catchy - but it's so damned
thin. Muzak with words. This was, by the way, released as a Paul McCartney
solo single, and anticipated the release of McCartney II in that
sense. The b-side was 'Rudolph The Red-Nosed Reggae', which is also a bonus
track, and is actually not bad if you're not expecting anything. It's certainly
better than coal in your stocking.
Sergey Zhilkin <[email protected]> (29.11.2000)
The first experemental Paul's album. I mean soft experiment, if you
want to try Paul's harder experiments take Press to play or even
McCartney2. Well, actually Paul has three prohibited things to do:
1) Live albums (no comments are required if you listen to Tripping the
live fantastic), 2) Experimental albums (again if you listen to Press
to play you'll understand what I'm talking about) and 3) Rock'n'roll
albums (in fact, I'm against Paul playing rock'n'roll oldies but not his
'new' rock'n'rolls (Run devil run for instance)). I didn't mention
hard-rock albums because a) there's only one hard-rock album (Back to
the egg itself, if somebody didn't understand) and b) it's successful.
I don't know why I like it. Every song without exceptions. You may think
I'm crazy but I insist that 'The broadcast' may be the best song here (oh,
well, not the best cause we have 'We're open tonight' and 'Old siam, sir').
I can listen to that monotone melody for many times
Back to the egg is the most aggressive record in my opinion. Just
look at these rockers: 'Rockestra theme', 'Spin it on', 'So glad to see
you here' and 'To you'. Sometimes I fall in love with them and sometimes
I understand that Paul's not so frank and open - just bad actor ( maybe
David Bowie didn't believe in Ziggy Stardust but he could play so well
that we were cheated. Paul, on the other hand, is bad actor). Still, sometimes
I turn on my stereo system and listen to Egg several times. Yeah,
the album is very energetic and ...hmm... maybe even serious...
By the way, why don't you like 'Again and again and again'? The melody
is beautiful and if you don't like the lyrics you can EASILY ignore them
(English isn't your native language, is it?). Plus, I like 'Baby's request'
(it reminds me 'Melancholy blues' from Queen's News of the world).
Well, to me it's another great album from Paul and I give it 9 out of 10.
Year Of Release: 1980
Record rating = 5
Overall rating = 9
Hey, one doesn't repeat the same mistake twice. Especially if it's
synth-propelled.
Best song: COMING UP
A fatal misstep. After Wings had disbanded, Paul thought it would probably
be better to start all his life a-new. So, just like ten years ago, he
locked himself in the studio, tried some new songs, and came up with another
quasi-solo album, even if this time around it wasn't as totally solo as
McCartney. Unfortunately, he really needn't have bothered, cuz this
record pretty much sucks. It features synths and different electronic gadgets
as the central instruments, and most of the songs are purely experimental.
There's plenty of short and not-so-short instrumentals, just like on McCartney,
but the ones there featured really interesting melodies and were actually
quite listenable. Tracks like 'Front Parlour' and 'Frozen Jap', on the
other side, seem only to reflect his interest in high technologies: did
he really think somebody would find pleasure in listening to this electronic
crap? Of course, it might have been interesting when this stuff was relatively
new and unexplored, but now it all seems horribly dated. Carry me back
to the happy days of 1980 and we'll see if I'm impressed.
It's 1998, however, and electronics seems to have turned out to be the
worst curse of rock music. Take 'Bogey Music', for instance: it takes a
rockabilly melody and passes it through the same electronic sound to horrible
effect, like a robot singing 'Rock Around The Clock'. Your worst nightmare.
Or the silly New Wave crap 'Temporary Secretary': how can such a thing
be expected from Paul McCartney? Leave this stuff to Roxy Music or Ultra
Vox, please.
So is there something to redeem this record? Fortunately, yup. A small
bunch of tunes which don't feature synths or at least don't feature them
prominently are actually quite good. The hit single 'Coming Up' is a jolly
happy pop song with a cute memorable melody; the feeble ballad 'Waterfalls'
does preshadow some of his later balladeering crap, but it's at least amusing;
the bluesy 'On The Way' is moody; and the boogie-woogie 'Nobody Knows'
is certainly better than 'Bogey Music'. However, even some of the electronica-free
songs already point out that the well is slowly running out of water ('One
Of Those Days'). In all, this is certainly not the album to own first -
it may even not be an album to own at all. The re-issue has it backed
up with two more electronosasters: the vomit-inducing computer collage
'Check My Machine' and the even lengthier, interminably boring piece 'Secret
Friend' with little lyrics and much garbage. Really, Paul. Nice try, but
let's consider this your practical joke. Just look at his expression on
the front cover!
On the way to mail your ideas
Your worthy comments:
<[email protected]> (13.07.99)
Actually, I rather like this album. True, it's not a masterpiece, but I think some stuff here is really cool, if eccentric. The best cut, "Coming Up," is one of my favorite McCartney songs. I think "Temporary Secretary" is kind of funny, and a nice stripped-down form of New Wave. "Waterfalls" and "One of These Days" are fine ballads. I find the instrumental "Front Parlour" really cool, sounding a lot like video game music; I think it's better than any of the instrumentals on McCARTNEY (although "Junk" is almost as good). Most of the other stuff here, though, is average at best. I give this record a 7. By the way, the 1993 remastered version also adds the Wings single "Goodnight Tonight" as a bonus track.
João Vargas <[email protected]> (26.12.99)
OK. I don't like this album. I can see how it was important for Paul to try this, but thank God he didn't continue on this type of thing. 'Coming Up' is bearable, but the live version is MUCH better. The only song I really like is 'Temporary Secratary'. It's a comical track, but it has a great sound. The rest of the album is pretty trashy, especially 'Waterfalls'. This album deserves a 4.
<[email protected]> (09.02.2000)
I think this record is the funkiest and coolest thing, Paul has made since McCartney! And that's the parallel between these two solo works: McCartney II is wonderfully uncommercial and funny. If you play it to some alternative or whatever...non-beatles fans, they'll be really impressed. Besides writing awesome tunes, McCartney's musical and stylish versatility was the thing that impressed me most. And there are synths - so what? They're still analogue and they are quite groovy. I dig all that stuff like 'Temporary Secretary' and 'Secret Friend'. At last this record shows McCartney's sense of homour and boldness. And it went to Nr. 1!
<[email protected]> (01.09.2000)
Apparently, Paul had no intention of releasing these recordings, but
then changed his mind. Unfortunately, what he ended up with was the first
real contender to Wild Life as the worst McCartney album. The only
songs that I think pull it slightly ahead of the first Wings album are
'Coming Up' (actually quite a good pop song, and refreshingly quirky) and
'Summer's Day Song' (sounds kinda like church, doesn't it? - I like how
the vocals show up just once in a while). He almost wrote a good song with
'Waterfalls', which has one of the most memorable melodies, but is otherwise
pretty dumb.
The rest of the songs can all be safely described as filler - no, wait,
I think 'throwaways' is a better word. Here and there, we get a mildly
amusing little idea or two, but generally these tracks are just Paul fucking
around. The synth songs are the most blatant examples, I guess ('Front
Parlour', 'Frozen Jap', 'Temporary Secretary', 'Darkroom'). The problem
with these is that any non-musician could have come up something just as
good, which makes it pretty pointless for a non-musician to buy the record,
doesn't it? The non-synth tunes aren't so great, either. 'On The Way' shows
us that the bass is definitely Paul's instrument - not the guitar, and
not the drums. 'Nobody Knows' and 'Bogey Music' could have both been pretty
good if Paul had simply written a song, but I guess he was happier fucking
around. I guess 'One Of These Days' is supposed to be a really moving ballad.
Sounds pretty lifeless to me, so I'll just keep my lighter in my pocket.
The bonus tracks on this CD basically give us more synth material. The
redundant 'Check My Machine' (from the b-side of 'Waterfalls') is saved
only by the inclusion of several samples taken from Warner Bros. cartoons.
'Secret Friend' was released in the UK (but not the US) as the b-side of
'Temporary Secretary'. The single was available only as a 12-inch, which
explains the excruciating length of this track (over ten minutes). I'll
admit that these tracks are kind of pleasing in a quirky way, but I can
think of a lot of music I'd rather listen to. The remastered CD also includes
'Goodnight Tonight' (which came out before the previous album - go figure).
And while there is an undeniable pop element to this disco tune, it's miles
away from the kind of music I listen to - so perhaps I shouldn't bother
judging it. (By the way, there's also an extended edit of this tune from
the 12-inch 'disco single', in case anybody out there just can't get enough
of it.)
So is there anything missing from this release? Yep, when 'Coming Up' was
released as a single, it had two b-sides (and this was on a 7-inch): 'Coming
Up (Live At Glasgow)' was the version that went to number one in the US
(and was also put on a one-sided single included with the first pressing
of the album) - it is currently available on the US CD of All The Best
(but the studio recording appears on the UK CD); and 'Lunch Box/Odd Sox'
is a bonus track on the Venus And Mars CD (since it was recorded
back then). Both of these are Wings tracks - but they weren't the last
Wings releases. In 1981, there was a double album called Concerts For
The People Of Kampuchea on which Wings took up all of side four (although
half the songs were actually by Rockestra).
Sergey Zhilkin <[email protected]> (07.12.2000)
Well, actually, I have only one question. Why did Paul do it? Didn't he realise that more than half of these songs are bad (awful, crap, amiss, cobbler, terrible, horrible,.... choose any word out of these to characterize McCartney 2 and you'll be right)?There are only three songs (out of 11) which I can enjoy: 'Coming up' (Paul has better version on Tripping the live fantastic), 'On the way' (it could be better without SUCH vocal) and 'Frozen jap' ('Frozen japanese'? Paul, how could you... Though you have a reason to hate them (remember the story about Linda's joint?)). 'Temporary secretary' was ruined by a) screaming in chorus, b)rythm-generator ,c) horrible electric guitar chord. Other songs are nothing to talk about. Though album was treated by people very well back in 1980. Still I rate it 4 or 5 (out of ten).
Year Of Release: 1982
Record rating = 8
Overall rating = 12
The last great McCartney album in a very long time.
Best song: TUG OF WAR
Yeah, this is indeed the last great 'hurrah' for Paul in at least ten
years. The mistake of McCartney II seems to have been finally corrected
here, and the album even managed to hit #1. I'm not at all surprised. The
synths are used only moderately, and there's just one disco experiment:
his collaboration with Stevie Wonder on the lengthy 'What's That You're
Doing' which seems to be the weakest spot on the whole album. An embarrassment,
and somehow it turns out to be the longest track on the album.
But the other songs are really, really good. Paul has taken up the guitar
and normal keyboards again, and he also gets lightweight and silly
on yet another duet - this time with Carl Perkins. The boogie-woogie 'Get
It' is, indeed, one of the funniest songs he ever did, and one of his last
successful retro numbers. And the fun abounds. 'The Pound Is Sinking',
I think, is the forgotten gem here, with Paul turning in some 'macroeconomic'
lyrics before suddenly turning the song into a crazy psycho number with
a ferocious climax. The straightforward rockers are fun ('Ballroom Dancing'),
the straightforward pop numbers are catchy ('Take It Away'), and the ballads
do display genuine emotion. 'Somebody Who Cares' is sad and uplifting at
the same time - who knows what the hell it is supposed to reflect? And
'Here Today' is a really moving tribute to Lennon.
Lennon's death resulted, however, in one more significant change for Paul's
image. He probably felt that it was his due to take over some of John's
functions, or he might have thought that his nearing fourty gives him a
'major' position. Anyway, both the opening title track and the closing
'Ebony And Ivory' (again with Stevie Wonder) find him in a new role which
now seems normal for him, but in fact he'd never tried it before: the role
of an anthemic songwriter. He'd rarely written political songs or
social anthems before (even 'Give Ireland Back To The Irish' was disguised
as a happy pop song), but this marks a new period in his writing. Not that
he's very good at anthems, but at least he's trying, and first time around
it seems to work. 'Ebony And Ivory' is an anti-racist song which thumps
along cosily, and the title track is a peace anthem which seems to go off
almost unnoticed before it suddenly launches into an overloud, bombastic
part in the middle. If it weren't for that 'in years to come...' part,
indeed, I'd probably write it off as filler, but as such, it manages to
become the best song on the album. No kidding, I hate bombast when it's
unjustified. This one seems to be justified. Eh? What's that? Justified
by what? Well, that's one question I really wouldn't appreciate
answering to. It's just based on my personal intimate feeling. How can
I put feelings into words? Oh, you're right, that's what these reviews
are all about. Well, they're really not as much about my feelings as about
my immediate need to express myself when I want to and shut up when I don't
want to. So I think I'd better shut up on that one. As the wise Jimi Hendrix
once said: 'move over, Rover, and let Jimi take over'. So scram. Beat it.
Somebody who cares? Mail your ideas, please.
Your worthy comments:
Darren Bowers <[email protected]> (17.06.2000)
I must agree this is the last true great effort by an icon which can not be matched with his musical merit. Unfortunately there will never be another great McCarntey album after this point. You can sense the heavy influence of George Martin who puts the icing on the cake so to speak. His influence and production effort can turn a good album into a classic. Highlights would be "Tug of war," "Ebony and Ivory," "Somebody who cares," and the heart felt Lennon tribute "Here today." "What that's your doing" is terrible and takes a few points of the album just for the major flaw of being there. It's definitely the weakest point on the album. It just doesn't fit at all. It sounds like I made a home tape of a McCartney album and I accidentally taped over it with this throw away Wonder track. Yuck!!!!! What in the hell was he thinking to put this on the album. Best out of ten, I would give it a 7 1/2.
<[email protected]> (07.09.2000)
The big comeback album. But, then, anything would have been a comeback
after the previous effort. I'd rate this album as being better than London
Town and Back To The Egg, though - maybe even Speed Of Sound.
The highlights for me are 'Ballroom Dancing' (simply one of McCartney's
catchiest pop songs) and 'Get It' (which is made almost irresistible by
Carl Perkin's timeless voice). Scoring highly as well is 'The Pound Is
Sinking', which is the most varied and interesting track on the album,
and quite solid from end to end. I'm also quite partial to 'What's That
You're Doing?', although it's about a minute too long and sounds like it
belongs on somebody else's album (now who could that be?). 'Dress Me Up
As A Robber' holds up pretty well melodically, but sounds like it belongs
on a Jacksons album.
Then there's a few songs I can take or leave, the most notable being 'Here
Today'. Generally, the melody holds up pretty well, and the lyrics aren't
bad, but Paul sounds like a fish out of water. If he wanted to be so personal,
he should have written a few practice songs first. That type of art needs
to be developed just like anything else. 'Somebody Who Cares' is a solid
tune, but stylistically doesn't grab me. 'Take It Away' is catchy, but
I don't care for the background harmonies. 'Tug Of War' doesn't do it for
me, either - in this case, the harmonies are downright insipid. When he
gets to 'in another world', it sounds like a TV ad for life insurance.
'Ebony And Ivory' falls into that 'Long And Winding Road'/'My Love' category
of solid songs that are just horribly straight-laced and, well, boring.
'Wanderlust' is one song that I can say I don't like on this album - too
rigid and uninspired.
It's a shame the CD doesn't have any bonus tracks, since this was a good
period for McCartney b-sides. 'Rainclouds' (the b-side of 'Ebony And Ivory')
is a very strong sort of spiritual-sounding song that would have only improved
the album had it been included. The same goes for 'I'll Give You A Ring'
(the b-side of 'Take It Away'), which sports a very infectious melody.
There's also a solo version of 'Ebony And Ivory' (without Stevie Wonder)
that appeared on the 12-inch single (along with the duet version and 'Rainclouds').
Year Of Release: 1983
Record rating = 3
Overall rating = 7
A dull, lifeless effort, with that insipid Eighties sound in all
its might.
Best song: PIPES OF PEACE
Regardless of anything you have to say, the Eighties were probably the
worst decade for rock music - the Nineties kinda revitalized the want for
quality and sincerity, even if for a little period. But the Eighties were
indeed the Dark Age for rock music, and nobody felt it more than the 'dinosaurs'.
McCartney, the Stones, the Who, Dylan, Clapton, everybody fell under the
Eighties Curse by switching their originality and creativity for dull electronic
music and heavy metal.
Oh, excuse me. 'Heavy metal' is not the kind of music McCartney is famous
for. He's famous for his failed computer experiments. Strange enough, though,
Pipes Of Peace isn't really built around synths and stuff. It's
hard to say, though, around what it is built. It's full of uninteresting,
uninspired, grossly banal pop structures that don't hold your attention
even for a minute. The title track is yet another of his 'anthems', and
it's at least slightly memorable, which is more than I can say about the
other tracks. Would you like me to discuss them one by one? Guess not.
Let's just give it a short try, OK? Ready, steady: 'Say Say Say' is a mechanic,
artificial love song written and sung together with Michael Jackson; 'The
Other Me' is an unbelievingly banal pop ditty which should have been a
hit with Alanis Morrisette; 'Keep Under Cover' is a synth-driven, poorly-written
social comment; 'So Bad' is a poorboy's 'My Love', with sweety murky falsetto
and a really really horrible generic Eighties pop refrain ('Girl I love
you/Girl I love you so bad... and she said Boy I love you/Boy I love you
so bad', yuck!); 'The Man', another collaboration with Michael Jackson,
is... stop. I'm really not ready to discuss this album track by track,
it'll give me a heart attack. Suffice it to say that it ends in another
ridiculous idea - combining the title track with 'Tug Of War' under the
name... right: 'Tug Of Peace'. The two songs were good enough separately,
but this is just a totally unnecessary trick.
WHY?
Why is it so bad? (Err, excuse me, I really didn't mean to mention that
song again). Who can tell? Who can guess? What the hell prevented him from
writing good songs? I'll tell you what. The EIGHTIES CURSE. The damn need
to stay atop everything, to be in fashion, to sell a lot of albums. He
didn't think of one thing, though. Nobody wants to buy a modern-sounding
album by an old fart when he can go out and buy the same-sounding album
by a young fart. That's why neither Pipes Of Peace nor anything
else in that epoch didn't sell. Ah, that commercial sense! How many good
artists have you ruined?
For the record again, there are three bonus tracks on this album, and,
to my opinion, they are the real reason to own the album. Well, at least
the last two. 'We All Stand Together' is a groovy fantasy pop symphony,
complete with silly backing vocals, cat miaows, and amusing 'bom-bom-boms';
and 'Simple As That' is just an incredibly catchy song with a self-sufficient
chorus ('Simple as that/Would you rather be alive or dead?'). Both date
from 1986, and both are better than anything else he put out around that
time. Also, there's a bombastic ballad from 1993 (!), and it's not bad.
If you see the album cheap, get it if only for the bonus tracks. You might
just experience some 'simple pleasure' from listening to them, like I do.
Say say say! Where are your ideas?
Your worthy comments:
Mats Fjäll <[email protected]> (28.11.99)
I have had this album for a a few years and only listened to it ONCE...
The best song on this is a GOOD song, but forget the others, of course
I'm talking about the title track! Oh yeah, the album futures Eric Stewart
from 10cc, Michael Jackson (uck!) and Ringo.
<[email protected]> (09.02.2000)
That's the album with which I managed to turn a friend into a McCartney-fan! I don't really know what you're talking about, George. There ARE great songs on it! The title track is as strong as anything Paul has written, 'Say,Say,Say' is a pretty funky affair (despite Jackson). 'The Sweetest Little Show' and the one that follows...that's McCartney at his very best! O.K. 'So Bad' really sucks, but there are some interesting uncommercial instrumental passages...this album is fun!
<[email protected]> (10.09.2000)
About half of this album was recorded during the Tug Of War sessions,
so in essence, it contains a lot of rejects. I would rate it a little higher
than Wild Life and McCartney II, but that's about it.
There is one song that I like quite a bit, though, which is the goofy polka
tune 'Average Person'. I can also stomach 'Pipes Of Peace' pretty well,
which seems to be a re-tread of 'Tug Of War' from the last album, but perhaps
a little better. I'm not sure if I like 'Sweetest Little Show', but it's
certainly the most interesting (and perhaps oddest) track on the album.
Stylistically, I could do without 'Say Say Say' and 'So Bad', but it's
easy to see why they were selected as A-sides, since they're both pretty
catchy. 'Keep Under Cover' manages to be vaguely catchy and totally stupid
at the same time. 'The Man' suffers from a horribly corny arrangement.
It sounds like one of those ballads from Michael Jackson's early solo albums
- you know, when he was twelve. 'The Other Me' and 'Through Our Love' are
just plain dull. 'Hey Hey' sounds like filler to me. And then there's 'Tug
Of Peace', one of what would become many dub mixes McCartney would do.
I almost thought there was something wrong with my stereo the first time
I heard it.
The remastered CD has three bonus tracks: 'Twice In A Lifetime' is a tremendously
unexceptional 80s ballad recorded around the same time as this album and
featured in the movie of the same name from 1985. It wasn't released until
the remastered CD came out. 'We All Stand Together' dates from before Tug
Of War, but wasn't released until 1984 on a UK single (there was also
a 'humming version' on the B-side). It comes from the animated short Rupert
and The Frog Song, which was released with Give My Regards To Broad
Street. I think it's probably the best track on the CD - McCartney
was really good at these fun kiddie tunes. 'Simple As That' dates from
right after Press To Play (it was on a various artists album in
the UK called The Anti-Heroin Project), so it really doesn't belong
here. Nevertheless, it's one of the best tracks.
Not yet on CD is 'Ode To A Koala Bear', the somewhat forgettable B-side
to 'Say Say Say'. Speaking of 'Say Say Say', there was also an extended
mix of that song on the 12-inch single, as well an instrumental mix. The
only other track that should have perhaps been here is 'The Girl Is Mine'
(which I could do without anyway), but it's part of the Michael Jackson
catalogue, so don't hold your breath waiting for it to turn up on one of
Paul's CDs.
Sergey Zhilkin <[email protected]> (29.11.2000)
Why do you dismiss it? It's no masterpiece, I agree, but it's still
good, at least in my opinion. 'Pipes of peace' (song) is Paul's 'Give peace
a chance' (though I don't really understand why it came out so late. I
can't remember any conflicts back in 1983). But while Lennon's version
was a kind of protest (like in 'We will rock you' many people are shouting
'All we are saying is Give peace a chance'), Paul's version is more melodious.
Surely, 'Pipes of peace' is the best song here (and it took the first place
in British hit-parade), but other songs are good,too (OK, this phrase isn't
adrressed to the last two songs). Unfortunately, some songs (like 'Say,
say, say') were ruined by Jackson's voice (I hope you'll never write anything
good about this ...big...err...fat...err...pig which bought licence on
Beatles' songs). But still they're enjoyable ( 'Say, say, say' even took
the first place in the American parade (thanks to big fat pig) and the
5-th in the British one).
'Sweetest show in town' and 'Average person' are rather cute pop numbers.
'Keep under cover' is really great (what a wonderful melody!) and 'The
other me' is okay. I like 'The man'(pretty little gem), too and even 'So
bad'. Though 'The man' could be twice better without big fat pig's grunting.
Plus, Paul had to delete last two songs (and that big fat pig, too) because
they are really DULL.
Well, I'd give it 8/10 but I hear big fat pig here and, besides, there's
a foretokenof 'Press to play'(Paul used rythm-generator instead of real
drums on most tracks). So my final rating is 7/10.
Year Of Release: 1984
Record rating = 4
Overall rating = 8
Soundtrack! But not as bad as it might have been, even if there are
only two new songs.
Best song: NO MORE LONELY NIGHTS
Look, if I keep on writing these lengthy reviews all the way through, I'll be running out of steam before I arrive to Macca's end. So I'll better keep this one short, OK? It's a slightly lame soundtrack to a failed film about Paul losing his mastertapes (whatever that means, I haven't seen it and I'm not going to). It mostly consists of re-recordings of older Beatles ('Eleanor Rigby', 'Yesterday', 'Here There And Everywhere') and solo Paul ('Silly Love Songs', 'Ballroom Dancing', 'So Bad' - yuck!) hits, with just two significant new songs thrown in: 'Not Such A Bad Boy' is a cute little rocker, although not very interesting, and 'No More Lonely Nights' seems to be a gorgeous ballad featuring Dave Gilmour's wailings on lead guitar. The bad news is: most of the re-recordings are significantly inferior, Paul's voice is giving way, and 'No More Lonely Nights' is re-run twice more, plus the bonus tracks include it even two times more. By the end of the album you're guaranteed to hate the song. Although you're bound to hate its disco version at once. Without further listen. Don't get this album unless you've seen the film. And liked it.
So bad there's too little of your ideas
Your worthy comments:
Enid Y. Karr <[email protected]> (14.03.99)
Am enjoying your reviews of Mccartney's solo career, just a short note
on Broad Street. You say you haven't seen it. I have, and yes, it
is pretty awful, because, as all who love Paul know, he's brilliant, but
he CANNOT edit himself. So the movie is fairly ghastly. But it is worth
watching if only for a very short scene near the end.... where he performs
'Yesterday' as a street busker. It redeemed the whole movie for me!
Thanks again for your reviews. Enid
<[email protected]> (12.09.2000)
So what do you do when you're Paul McCartney and you can't come up with
any good songs? You redo the old ones. That way, you'll end up with something
better than Pipes Of Peace. And indeed, this is better, since it
includes such outstanding compositions as 'Eleanor Rigby', 'For No One',
and 'Here, There And Everywhere' (plus a few that were never big favorites
for me: 'Good Day Sunshine', 'Yesterday' and 'The Long And Winding Road').
Even the retreads from his solo career bring about at least one good choice:
'Ballroom Dancing' (plus some more that I could do without: 'Wanderlust',
'Silly Love Songs' and 'So Bad'). The only problem with these tracks is
that none of them are as good as the original versions. In a couple of
instances, Paul actually rewrites a word or two, which is like playing
with fire considering how well known these songs are. And in general, he
sings these tracks with a slight degree of flippancy.
The new songs are generally average. I enjoy the thirties-style instrumental
'Goodnight Princess'. The ballad version of 'No More Lonely Nights' is
another in the 'Long And Winding Road'/'My Love'/'Ebony And Ivory' vein,
where the writing is solid, but way too conservative. The rock tunes, 'Not
Such A Bad Boy' and 'No Values' are both unexceptional, and rather forgettable.
Then there's the 'playout version' of 'No More Lonely Nights', which is
just a hip-hop rhythm with the song very loosely sung on top of it, and
completely devoid of any depth. Some of the instrumental and spoken passages
are interesting, particularly parts of 'Eleanor's Dream'.
This was the first McCartney album to first appear simultaneously as an
LP, a CD, and a cassette. What we ended up with was three different versions
of the album (and that's not counting the remastered CD). The LP is missing
'So Bad' and has a much shorter edit of 'Eleanor's Dream'. Both the LP
and the cassette are missing 'Goodnight Princess'. Only the CD had all
the tracks. The remastered CD gives us the 'extended version' of the playout
version of 'No More Lonely Nights', which is from the 12-inch single. The
playout version also appeared on the 7-inch single as the B-side of the
ballad version. Then there was a change made, and the playout version was
replaced by a 'special dance mix', which also appears as a bonus track
on the remastered CD. The 12-inch was changed, too, with the 'extended
version' replaced by a longer edit of the 'special dance mix'. This longer
edit isn't on CD yet. Got all that, completists? Okay, 'cause the 7-inch,
the cassette, and at least one of the promos all apparently have unique
edits. Happy hunting.
Sergey Zhilkin <[email protected]> (10.12.2000)
You know, I have many soundtracks to films but I enjoy not many from them (only Jesus Christ Superstar and Bowie's THE BUDDHA OF SUBURBIA). I hate soundtrack Rock'n'roll circus and I hate Broad street, too. Why? It makes me think of money I foolishly wasted. Look, I paid money for 'Tug of war' twice. Some new songs are bad, too (I even don't like 'No more lonely nights' and 'Goodnight princess'). By the way, the film itself is childish and stupid.
Year Of Release: 1986
Record rating = 1
Overall rating = 5
Pure electronic garbage. One of the lowest moments in rock history.
Best song: FOOTPRINTS
Gimme blood! Oh, how I lust for it. This is the worst effort by any
Beatle ever. Its loathsomeness surpasses Ringo's Hollywood albums, George's
Hare Krishna mantras and maybe even John's 'experimental' albums. Two of
the songs are decent: 'Press' is happy pop with a catchy melody, and 'Footprints'
is weakly reminiscent of his ten-years-old beautiful ballads. The rest
is unlistenable putrid bullshit crap. He's managed to stay away from electronica
for three albums: why should he return to it here? No reason. 'Highlights'
include the punk (my god, Paul! 1986?) 'Angry', the hysterical 'Move Over
Busker' and the computer-laiden, spacey-sounding, boomey-drumming, vomit-inducing
'Pretty Little Head'. Anthems include the overarranged, clumsy 'However
Absurd' with Paul's voice being probably let through a couple Vocoders
to the pleasant effect of sounding like a lame hoarse dog. Collaborators
include one Eric Stewart who's shared a lot of writing credits (so that
he at least relieves Paul of some responsibility for this garbage),
and guest musicians include Pete Townshend (what a bringdown) and Phil
Collins (sounds like it). Nah! 'Good Times Coming' and 'Only Love Remains'
slightly approach the degree of 'acceptable' (which is lower than 'listenable'),
but the other tracks are bad, bad, bad... I really want you to understand
me. This is not just your average bland Eighties pop like Pipes Of Peace.
This is worse. This is unbelievably uninspired, absolutely un-McCartneyesque
synth crap. An absolute zero and even lower. Avoid this album like plague.
There's a compilation out there called Paul McCartney Collection
which has both 'Footprints' and 'Press'. Grab it and forget about this
album. It shouldn't exist, not only is there no reason for its existence,
there are lots of reasons for its non-existence. Starting with the real
ugly album cover where he tries looking like he's twenty when he's in fact
fourty-three. Is this the big problem? Trying to sound fashionable again?
Oh well, history will decide 'who has fell and who's been left behind'...
P.S.: I have just reduced the rating to a 1. 'Footprints' and 'Press' are
OK, sure enough, but the rest is so unbelieeeeeeevingly horrid that it
still drags the record down. Just to give you a feel how bad it really
is. Anyway, I rated Double Fantasy a 9, even though half of the
songs there are Yoko's - it's just that the other half is so unbelievingly
good. Why shouldn't I rate this a 1 because these songs suck like nothin'
else?
Press this little link and mail your ideas
Your worthy comments:
<[email protected]> (09.02.2000)
You have to be quite a masochistic Beatle-fan to enjoy this album. But if you're a "Modern Talking" fan you'll love it! (I'm certainly not!) It includes three very standart-stuff ballads which are good, but not very impressive. At least it shows Paul was still keen on electronics and experiments.
Darren Bowers <[email protected]> (20.06.2000)
The only reason a person would ever want to purchase this album is if they were completing there collection of Beatles or McCartney albums. And even then it's still a waist of money. This album is god awful. I can only think of a few album which are as bad as this one. This would be by far one of the worst rock albums ever made. Although there are a few half way decent song which are 'Press' and 'Footprints'. And even those songs would only make good B-sides. They should put a sticker on the album cover stating "WARNING THIS ALBUM IS A WAIST OF YOUR TIME AND MONEY." Best out of ten, I would have to give this album a 1. And even that is being generous. If your still contemplating on getting this album, don't say I didn't warn you.
<[email protected]> (17.08.2000)
OK. I've spent the morning reading your McCartney reviews so I'm trying to get some context. I stopped at Press To Play, and haven't yet gone ahead to see what you think of everything else, but I must say this album is NOT his worst. I can't decide if that honor goes to Pipes of Peace, Broad St or Red Rose Speedway. And don't get me started on 'Mumbo' and 'Bip Bop'. Like most of his albums, it hasn't improved with age, which makes one think it wasn't that good to begin with but... 'Stranglehold' is satisfactory, as are 'Footprints', 'Busker', and 'Angry'. 'Only Love Remains' is gorgeous. The rest vary from wince-inducing to just not good. His worst album? Hardly. But still not his best. Crowded House put out two fine albums before Macca's next real album, and I like those better. OK. Back to reading.
<[email protected]> (23.10.2000)
While I wouldn't rate it as low as George did, I'd still put this album
on a par with Pipes Of Peace - meaning that only Wild Life
and McCartney II are worse. There is one song on here that stands
out for me, which is 'Stranglehold'. The rest are generally mediocre. 'Footprints'
is a little better than the rest, if only for its mood. 'Pretty Little
Head' conjures up some atmosphere, but is a bit dumb. 'Good Times Coming'
works pretty well as a new wave parody, but is marred by being segued into
the weak 'Feel The Sun'. 'Angry' is pretty laughable, but at least it rocks.
'However Absurd' does a pretty good job of sounding like a Pink Floyd tune.
'Talk More Talk' doesn't live up to all the interesting little voices you
hear in it. 'Move Over Busker' is just a forgettable medium-paced track.
'Only Love Remains' is a dreary ballad in the 'My Love' vein. And 'Press'
is purely mindless eighties synth pop.
The CD contains three songs not included on the LP: 'Write Away' (an okay
pop song from the b-side of 'Pretty Little Head'); 'It's Not True' (a fairly
dumb song from the b-side of 'Press'); and 'Tough On A Tightrope' (another
okay pop song from the b-side of 'Only Love Remains'). The remastered CD
also adds 'Spies Like Us' (released as an a-side a year before this album
- it gets my vote for the all-time dumbest McCartney track) and 'Once Upon
A Long Ago' (released as an a-side a year after this album - one of Paul's
corniest ballads). Not included on this CD are 'Hanglide' (an unexceptional
instrumental from the 'Press' 12-inch single) and several alternate mixes
of the aforementioned tracks. For the completists out there, I'll try to
summarize these. The version of 'Press' heard on the CD is actually a remix.
The original mix appeared on the 1st pressings of the UK 7-inch as well
as on the 10-inch single and later pressings of the LP in that country.
All other 7-inch releases have the 'video edit' and the 12-inch adds the
'dub mix'. The version of 'It's Not True' on the CD is the longer 12-inch
remix. The original mix appeared on the 7-inch. 'Pretty Little Head' was
released as an a-side in the UK, with new remixes for both the 7-inch and
12-inch singles. The 12-inch also included a remix of 'Angry', which also
appeared in the US as the b-side of 'Stranglehold'. 'Only Love Remains'
was also remixed for a 7-inch, and this mix also appeared on the 12-inch
single in the UK. That 12-inch also included extended remixes of 'Tough
On A Tightrope' and 'Talk More Talk'. In addition to these, there are three
separate alternate mixes of 'Spies Like Us' on that 12-inch. And 'Once
Upon A Long Ago' appears on the CD as the 'long version' from the first
of two 12-inch singles. There was also a 7-inch edit, a special edit for
the UK All The Best, and an 'extended version' for the 2nd 12-inch single.
Also from this time period was the Prince's Trust concert, which yielded
a few different albums and CDs. Variously, three McCartney tunes have made
the rounds: 'Get Back', 'Long Tall Sally' and 'I Saw Her Standing There'.
So, basically, if you were to compile all of the recordings from this batch,
you'd probably have about two and a half albums.
Sergey Zhilkin <[email protected]> (24.10.2000)
Okay, it's his worst album ever and there's nothing to talk about. Only one good song ('Press') and tons of s#$t. Pail! How could you do that? You always told us in your interviews that you hated electronic sound. O.K. Still if you want to buy it, I advise you to get 1993 year edition (good idea: sell garbage while you are on comeback wave). It has two more good songs: 'Write away' and 'Spies like us'. I'd rate it 4/10 with bonus and 1/10 without it.
m.miller1 <[email protected]> (12.12.2000)
Hated it when I first heard it but it has grown on me. I first heard
it on the '93 CD reissue so I include all the extra tracks in this too.
I dont really have a problem with the sporadic, electronic sound, it the
lyrics that make me cringe the most. Still those aside 'Press', 'Only Love
Remains', 'Stranglehold', 'Footprints' and 'Good Times' are all great.
Ive even grown partial to 'Talk More Talk' of late.
Definite stinkers in 'However absurd' and 'Pretty Little head', just nonsense
to me. I think that tracks recorded at this time like 'Simple As That'
and 'I Love This House' should have made it onto the final version, plus
some of the b-sides of the time, 'Its Not True' and 'Write Away'. It would
have been an all round more listenable affair that way. It is his worst
album ( not including the tear inducing Broad St.), but compared
to much of the crap being released at the same time, I think it is forgivable.
This was Maccas mid-80's slump, no respectable artist emerged from this
decade completely unscathed.
Year Of Release: 1991
Record rating = 5
Overall rating = 9
Macca's 'Rock'n'Roll'. Worse than Lennon's but at least better than
Press To Play.
Best song: JUST BECAUSE
The album was first released in Russia as a gesture of good will towards
the Soviet people. Not that Paul took a lot of pains to release it: basically,
it consists of a one-night recording session with his touring band that
included guitarist Mick Green among others (the ex-Pirates guy), and all
the songs are covers of old rock'n'roll classics. So one might say that
he's putting on Lennon's shoes - but there's a difference: Lennon recorded
these classics for the sake of the Idea - going back to his roots and trying
to make a successful blend of rockabilly with jazz-rock arrangements and
the wall-of-sound. McCartney seemed to have recorded them just because
he had a bit of spare time and wanted to fool around with his new band.
It shows, too: the playing is tight and compact, but the numbers hardly
seem rehearsed. In fact, any out of hundreds of professional bands at the
time could have made it even better. Although some of Green's leads are
fascinating, I'll admit. But not too many. And after all - are we listening
to a Mick Green album?
Of course, Paul wouldn't be Paul if he hadn't tossed in a couple surprises.
Besides the obvious boogies, like 'Lucille', 'Kansas City' and 'Twenty
Flight Rock', he also covers obscurities like Duke Ellington's 'Don't Get
Around Much Anymore' and (surprise, surprise) 'Summertime'. The first one
is nice, the second one could be nice, but Janis Joplin's version still
sticks in my head and while it's there, no other version will ever come
close. I'm ready to kill for it. Honestly.
So... what was I talking about? Ah, yes. I was just going to say that the
faster numbers on here usually work better than the slower ones. The Presley
numbers ('That's All Right Mama' and especially the even faster 'Just Because')
will have your toes being tapped and your head being bobbed in no time,
that's for sure. Not that all the slow numbers are bad. The problem is,
they often recall better versions - if they don't, they work ('Crackin'
Up'); when they do, they mostly make me sigh and shrug my shoulders ('Midnight
Special' was done better by CCR; 'Bring It On Home To Me' was done better
by both the Animals and Lennon; 'Lawdy Miss Clawdy' was done better by
Elvis, etc., etc., etc.). In all, a good record to put on if you're in
for a dance or just loud fast hilarious rockabilly, but not recommendable
at all. Not at all. What can you find here? Paul is famous for his songwriting,
production and singing. There's no originals, the production is next to
none, and the vocals are slightly out of tune and sometimes annoying. So?
Bring it on home to me! Mail your ideas
Your worthy comments:
Dmitry Jilkin <[email protected]> (29.05.2000)
Where doyou live, boy? Not in Russia I bet. So you can say nothing about
CHOBA B CCCP album. It was made ONLY for USSR people, who knew only
about one Paul's album - Rubber soul. They've never heard Chuck
Berry, Carl Perkins, Buddy Holly and Elvis Presley! Melodia(it is our company
that published CHOBA B CCCP in Russia (1989)) did a great job. Half
a million records were sold in three weeks (only in Moscow and Leningrad).
People got another small peice of Paul McCartney and Beatles. Everyone
who bought it was thankful to Paul for such records, because at first it
was hard to be published in USSR even for native groups (there was a plan
-- one album in two years) and at second rock-n-roll was VERY popular in
USSR in those years. So please take your words back. It is not fair to
talk about present that wasn't made for you.
P.S. My rating is 8/10 because I really liked 'Don't Get around much anymore'
and 'Cranin' up'.
[Special author note: two
notes, actually. Number one: those who would like to find out where I live
should check out the introduction page to the site (actually, it is advisable
to check the intro page before mailing flames anyway). Number two: it is
not fair (and certainly not intelligent) to rate an album based on its
social value rather than its musical one. The record had
a large impact on the cultural life of the Russian people, it's sure, but
so would Britney Spears' latest album were it introduced to the aborigenes
of a cannibal-inhabited island in the Pacific Ocean.]
<[email protected]> (25.10.2000)
My opinion of this album is pretty much the same as George's. It would be nice to say that this excursion into McCartney's past yielded an inspired bunch of music - but it didn't. On the positive side, I think the musicians sound pretty good. The performances are both unpolished and professional. And the sound is clear and simple. On the negative side, there isn't a version of any song on this album that tops the original, or for that matter, certain cover versions done previously by other artists, most of whom George already mentioned. McCartney just doesn't have what it takes to sell these songs. When you're dealing with early rock 'n' roll songs (or c&w or r&b or blues), the performance is everything. Paul sings these songs with style, but without passion, and ends up sounding smug. In addition to that, he no longer can hit the notes on the Little Richard material without getting that strain that became a hallmark of his World Tour period of the late 80s and early 90s. I'd also like to make one little nitpicking point: the echo on 'Ain't That A Shame' cheapens an otherwise reasonable track. Basically what we have here is a mediocre album. Nothing more and nothing less. And now, here's some technical info for those who are interested, including perhaps Dmitry, who may be surprised to know that five of these tracks came out in the UK before anybody else got them. Now, as many are aware, the original Russian LP had only 11 songs on it. Four of these had already been released a year earlier in the UK on the CD single and two separate 12-inch singles of 'Once Upon A Long Ago'. These were 'Don't Get Around Much Anymore' (my favorite track on the album), 'Kansas City', 'Midnight Special' (now there's a dull rendition!) and 'Lawdy Miss Clawdy'. A couple of months after the 11-song album, the Russians got a 13-song album, adding 'I'm Gonna Be A Wheel Someday' (which was accidentally left off of some copies, resulting in a very rare 12-song version) and 'Summertime' (which not only is topped by the Joplin version, but the Porgy And Bess version as well). A couple more tracks ('I'm Gonna Be A Wheel Someday' and 'Ain't That A Shame') appeared in the UK, as well as the US, several months later on the 'My Brave Face' CD single (and UK 12-inch). There were also a couple of tracks that appeared in the UK that weren't on the Russian LP at all, both of which were on the 'This One' CD single and 12-inch. These were 'I'm In Love Again' (which eventually was included on the CD version of the album) and 'I Wanna Cry' (a dull blues tune written by Paul himself). This latter tune also turned up on a US promo CD called Paul McCartney Rocks (along with 'Don't Get Around Much Anymore'). And, finally, there is a dull version of 'It's Now Or Never' which appeared on a various artists album called The Last Temptation Of Elvis.
Teresa Juarez Guzman <[email protected]> (26.11.2000)
Nothing to say except that going through this page is a fun way to forget my personal troubles. Nothing to add to your review, "George"?, on Back to the USSR. It's a so-so album. 5. Oh... and... as you'll see in my comment about Flaming Pie, sometimes we get carried away and simply our comments sound like complaints. Take them as they are. We're not going to change each other's toughts. Nice page I must say again.
Sergey Zhilkin <[email protected]> (29.11.2000)
My brother Dmitry is a little bit mistaken here (I write 'a little bit'
only because he's my brother, otherwise I'd have written 'deeply'). He
says that the Russians had only small part of Paul's solo career and Beatles
career, too. It's not true. Actually, there were 7 singles (two, three
or sometimes four songs on every single-disc) and one album released (Band
on the run) before 1988. In 1988 there was first variant of Back
in USSR without 'I'm in love again', 'I'm gonna be a wheel someday',
'Don't get around anymore' and 'Summertime'. On the 1989-variant there
were no 'I'm in love again'. I searched for information about release Back
in USSR in UK or USA. BtheW (Sorry man, I don't know your real name
so I'll take it from your address) is completly right but still I want
to stress that these songs were put together firstly in USSR.
O.K. Now let's get to the album itself. It isn't bad at all and it sounds
well. But it's one-time-use thing. I don't want to listen it once more,
really. I've heard all these songs many times before and Paul's performance
doesn't bring anything special. Still if you are compelist, Macca's fan
or just want to see what people in USSR liked back in 1988 buy it. You
won't be much disappointed if you lower your expectations. By the way,
I don't know how you could say that 'Just because' is the best song here
cause to me it's so dull. In my opinion 'Crackin' up' is the best one here.
Well, let's get to the ratings. I think it's 9/15 but this nine is rather
strong.
P.S. Did you really like Janis' version of 'Summertime'? Tell me it's not
true!
Year Of Release: 1989
Record rating = 6
Overall rating = 10
The comeback? The 'back door comeback', I'd say. But truly - there
are good songs on here, at last.
Best song: PUT IT THERE
The band for the Flowers In The Dirt sessions should probably
be listed here, as it was Paul's longest-lasting outfit since Wings (which
weren't much of a stable organization, to begin with). These guys are:
Hamish Stuart on base (awful looking chap), Robbie Mcintosh on guitars
(just as awful looking, but at least he's a good guitarist), Paul Wickens
on keyboards (very sly looking gentleman, but at least he sure can imitate
that piccolo line on 'Penny Lane'), and Chris Witten on drums (later replaced
by Blair Cunningham). Oh, and Linda, of course. Well, that's about it.
Now I can discuss the flaws and advantages of Flowers In The Dirt.
Critics hailed it as a big comeback (the big comeback, exactly),
but I figure they must have been exaggerating. Funny that the same thing
happened to Dylan's Oh Mercy and the Stones' Steel Wheels,
and they both came out the same year. Both were moderately good, but both
were overrated. I'd call 1989 the 'back-door comeback' - the first year
in a long time when 'rock dinosaurs' started putting out something more
than just commercial (or anti-commercial, sounds the same to me) 'product'.
Later on, all three of them managed to have a 'real' comeback (with Off
The Ground, Voodoo Lounge and Time Out Of Mind), but
that's another story. Still, history sure does have its laws.
So what is there to tell? The definitely good news is that Paul has finally
realized that fashion isn't everything. So you won't find that crappy Electronica
sound here - at least, not in its overdominating form: synths are still
prominent, but there's also some mighty fine guitarwork which we really
haven't had since Tug Of War. Another good news is that his songwriting
has definitely taken a turn for the better - maybe due to collaboration
with Elvis Costello, but probably independently of that. And finally (and
most important of all), this sounds like Paul again - like the live
Paul, I mean. Where Press To Play seemed to substitute Paul McCartney
the human for a gray robotic, totally lifeless, model, Flowers In The
Dirt makes the opposite statement. Paul is back and he's speaking to
you.
Not that everything he says is good. There's some political filler ('How
Many People'), some over-synthed ballads ('Don't Be Careless Love') and
even an overlong, bombastic, totally out-of-place and out-of-style religious
hymn ('Motor Of Love' - that's Harrison stuff for you!) But most of the
other tracks are rather pretty, even though there's practically no standouts,
and at least the hooks are back in place. These songs are not very diverse
- every one has a steady beat, good guitars going, and a generic good pop
sound. Gone are the happy days of the mid-Seventies when every second song
sounded different. But be thankful for what you get, anyway - if you had
already lost hope by 1989, here's at least a good chance. Also, most of
these songs are introspective: in 'My Brave Face' Paul ponders about his
identity, on 'Distractions' he hums about life's simple pleasures, and
the prettiest of them, the acoustic ditty 'Put It There', is a little teeny-weeny
bit of nostalgia with touching lyrics. Be sure to check out 'Rough Ride',
too, with its naggin' melody and general moody atmosphere, and the crazy-soundin',
heavy-poundin' 'Figure Of Eight' with Paul rising to the very height of
his vocal powers.
The 'bizarre' track on here is the closing, New Wave-inspired 'Ou Est Le
Soleil' which does sound a lot like some Police instrumental on Zenyatta
Mondatta -only more complicated and somewhat more stupid. But at least
this is one experiment that works and doesn't get real nasty. Bonus tracks
include some singles or something from that era, but they're crappy, except
the cute ballad 'Loveliest Thing' which is too generic but otherwise quite
good. Rock on!
How many people will mail their ideas?
Your worthy comments:
Sergey Zhilkin <[email protected]> (01.10.2000)
McCartey's most overrated album. But not by you. I heard some critics
saying it was better than Band on the run. Nevertheless it's great
comeback for Paul, isn't it? Songwriting surely improved after Press
to play (yuck!) and lyrics are great, too. I can't define the best
song here. They are all so different (oh well at least the first ten songs
from 'My brave face' to 'That day is done') and so wonderful, charming.
I love them! But I think that album is so good because of Paul's strong
support-team. H.Stuart, D.Rhodes, St. Lipson and D. Gilmour (is it the
same Gilmour, the member of Pinhk Floyd? If it is no wonder that 'We got
married' has such ending) play on guitars, post-punk rockabilly Elvis Costello
helps Paul with vocals, Ch.Whitten and D.Mattacks play on drums while while
M.Froom, C.Hawkes and T.Horn with D.Foster play on keyboards. And don't
forget about Linda who learnt how to use harmonies. How many instruments
do you think there are on 'Figure of eight', 'This one', 'My brave face'
or 'We got married' (Hey! Why didn't you write a word about this beautiful
song? Very calm beginning and what unexpected ending!) The only two songs
I don't kike here are 'Motor of love' and 'How many people' (you're right,
it's political filler. Paul! How about selling T-shirts with sir Paul giving
a kick to Saddam Husein? Or protesting against Soviet soldiers in Afganistan.
Or...). Most of songs on Flowers in the dirt are very complex. Does
the fact that there're three men playing on the sax (Ch.Davis, Ch.White
and D.Bishop) tell you something? Despite the fact that there're so many
different songs, the album leaves the feeling of blues one. Why? I don't
know. This album is true 8 out of 10!
But wait! If you get it with bonus you'll be more satisfied! 'Back on my
feet' is great and 'Flying to my home' really blows my mind. It's 9/10
with bonus.
<[email protected]> (29.10.2000)
A clear comeback, this album easily beats out everything McCartney had done since Tug Of War, and I think it's the equal of that album in terms of quality - if not better. My favorite tracks tend to be the collaborations with Elvis Costello, particularly the strange 'Don't Be Careless Love' and the amusing 'You Want Her Too'. I'm also very partial to the gospel-oriented 'That Day Is Done' and the hook-filled 'My Brave Face'. Plenty of the material McCartney wrote on his own is top-notch here as well: 'We Got Married' is an excellent piece of writing and arranging, and 'Put It There' is downright charming. There are also a few tunes that I like only moderately: 'Distractions' is a nice jazz-ballad; 'How Many People' is a decent pop-reggae tune with a soft message; 'This One' is an infectious pop song that perhaps sounds too much like a TV ad; 'Rough Ride' is a decent song that somehow doesn't grab me. The only songs that I really don't care for are 'Motor Of Love', which is just a little too airy and doesn't have that great of a melody, and 'Figure Of Eight', which I guess is supposed to be a highlight (it opens side two), but Paul sounds obnoxious and the melody ain't much. The CD version of this album also contains 'Ou Est le Soleil?' (from a US 12-inch and cassette single, as well as some of the 'Figure Of Eight' singles in various formats), which is a return to the more syncopated type of stuff Paul did on Press To Play - and yet, I find it strangely appealing. The remastered CD also contains the very catchy 'Back On My Feet' (another collaboration with Elvis - from the b-side of 'Once Upon A Long Ago' in the UK), the bizarre but infectious 'Flying To My Home' (from the b-side of 'My Brave Face') and the somewhat unexceptional ballad 'Loveliest Thing' (from the 'Figure Of Eight' 5-inch CD single in the UK). There were several songs from this period that didn't appear on this CD: 'The First Stone' (a disjointed and mediocre song from the b-side of 'This One'); a remake of 'The Long And Winding Road' (from the 'This One' boxed single and the 'Figure Of Eight' 5-inch CD single in the UK - didn't he already do this one on Broad Street?); 'Good Sign' (little more than a dub mix, it comes from the 'This One' 12-inch in the UK); 'Party Party' (little more than a groove, it comes from the bonus disc of the World Tour Pack of the album); 'Same Time Next Year' (a hopelessly corny ballad from the 'Put It There' CD single in the UK); and 'P.S. Love Me Do' (sounds 'Love Me Do' and 'P.S. I Love You' got married and had a kid - and the kid grew up to be Madonna; from the double CD version of the album in Japan). There was also a duet with Johnny Cash called 'New Moon Over Jamaica', a gentle country waltz from Cash's album Water From The Wells Of Home. It should be noted that the version of 'Figure Of Eight' on the countless single releases is an entirely different recording than the one on the album and appears in 3 different edits (not counting promos). The version of 'Rough Ride' on the 'Figure Of Eight' 3-inch single (in the UK) is also a different recording than the album version. There is a 'Club Lovejoys Mix' of 'This One' on one of the 'Figure Of Eight' 12-inch singles in the UK. 'Ou Est le Soleil?' appears on various singles only as a remix, and four different edits (not counting promos). There is also a 'Dub Mix' and an 'Instrumental Mix'. The Japanese double CD also contains a spoken message not found anywhere else. Happy hunting.
Year Of Release: 1990
Record rating = 5
Overall rating = 9
A standard concert album for those who can't get enough of minor
variations on McCartney music.
Best song: hell, it's a greatest hits live. How should I know?
Oh, what a mammoth this is. He's only had his second live album out,
and it's a double CD (Wings Over America was a triple LP set, if
you remember). However, this time it's not a prog rock emulation - it's
just a means of money-making. Oops, sorry - there's a short version of
this one out, called Tripping The Live Fantastic - Highlights!,
so if you're only curious, you might as well pick up that one. The double
CD is really something, though! The track listing seems almost endless
on first sight, with tons and tons of Beatles and McCartney solo classics
that are run through as close to the originals as possible. The obvious
question is why?, and I think I've already answered it. Now how's it if
I just omit this stupid review and change it for the complete track listing
so as to fill up the web space? Let's see, you'll have your 'Got To Get
You Into My Life', 'Birthday', 'The Long And Winding Road', 'The Fool On
The Hill' and you'll even have an extended version of 'Sgt Pepper's Lonely
Hearts Club Band' - both the main theme and the reprise linked together
by a lengthy instrumental passage, not that it's a very good idea. Oh,
at least it gives us a little diversity. You'll also have your 'Can't Buy
Me Love', 'Matchbox', 'Things We Said Today' (atrocious version! simply
atrocious!), 'Eleanor Rigby', 'Back In USSR', 'I Saw Her Standing There'...
oh God I'm already sick.
Please excuse me for a moment...
---------------------
Errr. Sorry. Now where was I? Ah yes. So as not to repeat my mistake, I
probably won't be listing the solo McCartney songs here. Suffice it to
say that you'll have to endure an entire half of Flowers In The Dirt
(the good half, at least), and some hits from the back catalog, too. The
major surprise is 'Coming Up' which is totally rearranged and made more
of a rocker than of a pop song, with elements of drum soloing. And speaking
of Beatles hits, the real surprise is the closing medley taken from
Abbey Road. It's probably the only track on the album whose appearance
I wouldn't be able to predict. Again, it's not different from the original,
but maybe for the better. Otherwise, Paul has included several short links,
probably to 'amuse' the audience, which range from stupid (crazy noises
on 'Inner City Madness') to downright annoying (the silly ditty 'If I Were
Not Upon The Stage' which he suddenly cuts short, says 'oh no, that's not
the one' and launches into 'Hey Jude'). Some songs are also obvious studio
recordings ('Sally', the closing 'Don't Let The Sun Catch You Crying'),
probably covers, and not very interesting at that. Anyway, nothing beats
'Yesterday'. Whatever you try, you'll still be enjoying the classics and
dissing the grooves. On the other hand, all of these classics have their
original versions. So what am I pointing at? Oh, nothing. Well, at least
there are worse ways of spending your money. Like buying the complete works
of Ian Fleming, for instance.
If I were not upon the stage, I'd be mailing my ideas
Your worthy comments:
<[email protected]> (01.11.2000)
The obvious comparison here would be with Wings Over America,
which is notably superior to this second triple-live album from McCartney
for one main reason: on the earlier album, the live versions are often
better than the originals. Not the case with this long-winded release.
Not that these are necessarily bad versions. In fact, to somebody who isn't
familiar with the original versions, this would be a pretty impressive
collection of songs. But McCartney's voice is consistently strained and
the band is too often flabby-sounding, even with all their professionalism.
Good examples of this would be 'Birthday' and 'I Saw Her Standing There',
both of which lack the authoritative wallop of the Beatles versions. Mostly,
though, the songs in this collection sound close enough - in fact, sometimes
too close - to the originals. The Flowers In The Dirt material in
particular is virtually indistinguishable from the studio recordings.
The only really bad moment is the additional vocal harmonies on 'The Fool
On The Hill', which reduce a really great song to, well, a really great
song with really dumb vocal harmonies added to it. 'Got To Get You Into
My Life' also suffers from some cheesy harmonies.
Ironically, my favorite track on this album is actually 'Matchbox', which
I always considered to be one of the Beatles' weakest tracks. In this case,
McCartney and band give us a good driving rhythm and decent harmonies.
The slide guitar solo on this track (as well as 'Ain't That A Shame') is
outstanding. The guitar also makes 'Get Back' a standout on here. Generally,
I kind of like the unique tracks on here - meaning the ones that weren't
on earlier McCartney albums: 'Don't Let The Sun Catch You Crying' is pretty
solid; 'Sally' and 'If I Were Not Upon The Stage' are both amusing; 'Inner
City Madness' is mildly interesting; 'Together' is a bit dull.
Here's some technical info for those who want it: 'Sgt. Pepper' on this
album includes not only the regular song, but an instrumental passage similar
to the solo section of 'The End', as well as the reprise. 'Put It There'
includes the coda from 'Hello Goodbye' added at the end. Not included on
this album is 'Good Day Sunshine' which was the B-side of 'Birthday'. A
UK CD single and 12-inch of that added 'P.S. Love Me Do' (yep - that's
the actual title) and 'Let 'Em In'. There's a one-CD version of this album
called Tripping The Live Fantastic Highlights! which is no better
and no worse than the double CD. The UK version of Highlights replaces
'Put It There' with 'All My Trials', a decent tune that isn't on the double
CD, and which was an A-side in the UK. The B-side of 'All My Trials' was
a pretty good version of 'C Moon', while the CD single and 12-inch added
'Mull Of Kintyre', which is interesting because the British crowd goes
apeshit over it. There was a second 'All My Trials' CD single that included
a medley of 'Strawberry Fields Forever', 'Help!' and 'Give Peace A Chance',
which are all rendered into modern muck. There was also the various artists
double album called Knebworth: The Album, which included 'Coming
Up' and 'Hey Jude', both of which are only minutely different from the
Tripping versions.
I'd like to point out, too, that 'Coming Up' holds the record for most
versions of a Paul McCartney song to be officially released. There's five:
the studio version, the Glasgow version, the Kampuchea version, the Knebworth
version, and the Tripping version. If you count the Beatles, then
'The Long And Winding Road' surpasses it: the Let It Be version,
the Anthology version, the Wings Over America version, the
Broad Street version, the This One version, and the Tripping
version. Is that overkill or what?
Sergey Zhilkin <[email protected]> (29.11.2000)
Paul'd better call it 'Ripping the live fantastic'. This record is one
of the most weakest live albums I've ever listened to. Let's start from
the fact that Paul sings too many Beatles' songs and I can't say that live
performance is better than LP's one. Then Paul put two really stupid numbers:
'Inner city madness' and 'Together'. Were they written in five minutes?
It seems to me so. Next disappointment is that we hear too many dinosaur-rocks.
They are not bad but a) Paul sings them badly and b) They don't get together
with songs from Flowers in the dirt. By the way, I know why Paul
stops singing 'If I were not upon the stage': crowd (concert was in Germany)
was going to boo him off! Can you imagine it?
And here's another minus: second live version of 'Maybe I'm amazed' fails.
I won't explain you why just go and listen it again. List, let's count
Paul's solo-career songs which aren't taken from Flowers in the dirt.
Err... ONLY 5 songs? Oh, I'm so depressed...
Year Of Release: 1991
Record rating = 6
Overall rating = 10
Washed-up old badger trying to revitalize his ancient hits? Anyway,
why not give 'em a listen?
Best song: THE FOOL
'Welcome to Unplugged, a program where everybody takes his plug out
and goes mad'. I don't know exactly what plug Paul meant and from
where it should be taken out, but that particular plug seemed to
stay in its place securely. Because nobody really went mad about this event,
certainly not Paul himself. Instead, he'd rehearsed some of his hits with
the band (anyway, I don't think he needed that much rehearsing - lots of
the tracks overlap with the ones on Tripping), mostly sticking to
the acoustic stuff, and performed them flawlessly. Or, well, as flawlessly
as was possible for a 48-year old Beatle with a band of unknown professional
musicians. And that means there's really nothing to get particularly excited
about.
Still, the record has its share of surprises - and unlike the ones on his
major live albums, they seem to work. Thus, Paul's band runs through a
couple of oldies you won't find anywhere else, including 'I Lost My Little
Girl', Paul's first ever song. Apparently he thought Unplugged to be the
most appropriate place to bring up that rarity, and I can't agree more:
imagine singing 'I woke up this morning/My hair was in a whirl/Then I realized/I
lost my little girl' in a stadium! He'd probably get booed off the stage.
Here, though, the groove does amuse.
Oldies also include Elvis' big hit 'Blue Moon Of Kentucky' and a wonderful
scary country ditty called 'The Fool'. Whose one is that? It's wonderful!
And they really, for once, engage in a moody performance. You'll also discover
'San Francisco Bay Blues', which was done by Clapton on the same program
(some kind of competition or what?), and some less interesting ditties.
The hits? Most of them are Beatles ballads, either done decently ('Here
There And Everywhere', 'Blackbird'), or totally ruined ('Things We Said
Today' which needs to be tight and menacing; here it is loose and complaintive,
and they kill it, kill it, kill it!; 'And I Love Her' with Paul sounding
like a ninety-year old gospel singer). And he forgets the words to 'We
Can Work It Out' so they have to restart it thrice! Gee, what a
fascinating capture of a truly historic moment! McCartney solo numbers
are mostly limited to songs from his debut album, which I can only explain
by the fact that these songs are really suited for an unplugged performance.
They're good (especially 'Junk' and 'That Would Be Something'). Still,
this record is not something to jump about madly, because it ends up looking
like just another fine commercial product. The only reason I can see for
any non-diehard fan to buy it is these few cute cover tunes and 'I Lost
My Little Girl', but otherwise it's just okay. All Paul McCartney live
albums are just 'okay', and you shouldn't set expectations high. On the
positive side, they're never bad or embarrassing - even if the old fellow
forgets a couple of lines, he can still joke his way out of it.
And finally I'd like to warn all of you out there that my copy is called
'the official bootleg', with 22 tracks. There must be a non-bootleg copy
out there somewhere, but somehow I'm not interested in searching for it.
Grab the official bootleg if you can find it - at least it'll be more stuff
for same money.
That would be something if you mailed me your ideas
Your worthy comments:
Sergey Zhilkin <[email protected]> (05.09.2000)
Your review disappointed me very much.Not because you gave it high mark
(it's fair) or said something wrong.Well, I'll try to explain.I have 'Unplugged:
the offical bootleg' on one disc (as you I think) but there are only 17
songs of 22 you reviewed.The cover is the same as yours and I haven't heard
it was remastered (when and for what? 1991 is rather fresh).I checked three
other sites on Web and all were reviewing 17-songs version.Please judge
us.And one correction: 'Blue Moon Of Kentucky' was written by Bill Monroe(well,
maybe it was sang by Elvis later).
And now about album itself.TONS of fun!At first I thought that it is 8/10
at least.Then I realized (no, not that I lost my little girl) that many
of these songs are old(it doesn't mean I don't like them) and I've heard
them before.Paul just recorded them on his program.Yeah, you are right
6/10 is enough.
<[email protected]> (30.11.2000)
I think the appropriate album to compare this to would be The Russian
Album, since there are so many rock 'n' roll oldies here. I far
prefer Unplugged over that earlier release. Most of the songs
here are sung well and generally have a good atmosphere - although I'll
admit that I'm kind of a sucker for acoustic performances. It's refreshing
to see so many tracks from McCartney here, with both 'Every Night' and
'That Would Be Something' being standouts. Most of the oldies work
well, with perhaps 'Hi-Heel Sneakers' being the best. If anything,
it's the Beatles tunes that are inconsistent (I mean the versions - not
the songs themselves). Nevertheless, I would still rate 'She's A
Woman' as one of the best tracks on this album, even though the Beatles'
version never did much for me. I'm also fairly shocked that Paul
wrote the harmless but catchy 'I Lost My Little Girl' when he was only
14. But then, he's Paul McCartney, isn't he? I'd also like
to give a thumbs up to Robbie McIntosh for his work on the dobro, which
gives a whole new dimension to 'Blue Moon Of Kentucky', 'San Francisco
Bay Blues' and 'That Would Be Something'.
Okay now, I don't have the version of this CD that George has, but I've
got all of the songs, so I'm going to attempt to straighten out the facts
here. First of all, both the 22-song version and the 17-song version
are called Unplugged - The Official Bootleg. However, the
17-song version is not a bootleg. It's an official release. In
fact, no release can really be both, since 'official' and 'bootleg' are
opposite to each other. My best guess is that George has an actual
bootleg of the original performance. The five songs found on the
22-song version, but not the 17-song version are the following: 'Things
We Said Today', which was actually released as the b-side of 'Biker Like
An Icon' a couple of years after this album; it was also included on the
Dutch 'Biker Like An Icon' CD single with 'Midnight Special'; and both
of these songs appeared on a UK promo CD single of 'Biker Like An Icon'
with 'Mean Woman Blues'. That leaves 'Matchbox and 'The Fool' (which
I kinda like), both of which were performed but not broadcast and not officially
released. It should also be noted that the 17-song version has only
one of the two false starts on 'We Can Work It Out', so it doesn't come
across so pathetically, and a shorter edit of 'Ain't No Sunshine'. The
bootleg called Plugged And Unplugged has all of the missing material.
Year Of Release: 1993
Record rating = 8
Overall rating = 12
The real comeback. This is the first record in many years that's
as diverse as possible. Get it today.
Best song: BIKER LIKE AN ICON
At last, this is the moment we've all been waiting for. If you bring
yourself to the point of realizing there's no fault in getting old and
having an average dose of crap on every record, you'll certainly love the
album. And why, do you ask me? Because there's a great deal of self-assuredness,
creativity and inventive ideas here. But primarily, it's a diverse album
- the most diverse since Tug Of War. It's not all electronic, and
it's not all average pop, and it's not all introspective midtempo rockers
(guess what records I'm putting off?) It's... different. It's also
quite happy and hilarious, and it's also well produced. Well played, too.
And he even manages to stay away from influences - you'd never tell this
is Nineties rock'n'roll. So that there's a real chance of this album not
sounding dated in a hundred years or more.
You've probably heard the most bombastic, anthemic tracks from here, like
the bouncy optimistic 'Hope Of Deliverance' and the majestic 'C'mon People'.
But really, these are not the best cuts on the record. They're good, but
they again represent McCartney's pro-Lennon facet, and try as he may, he
can't afford that ear-splittering sound John's best anthems are known for.
And 'Hope For Deliverance' would have easily fit onto Flowers In The
Dirt, if only with slightly altered lyrics. Other bombastic songs include
the peace anthem 'Peace In The Neighbourhood' (a jolly good pop piece,
but overlong), the animals' rights anthem 'Looking For Changes' (somewhat
lame rocker, but at least it's easily memorable), and the love anthem 'Winedark
Open Sea' which is just a bit too dang repetitive for my tired ears. If
anything, this album suffers from being too bombastic, more so than any
previous one, indeed. But at least the melodies are good!
Now if you bypass the slicky anthems, this is where the pleasure really
starts. Just let me look at the track listing. Title track? Ah, now there's
a really good rocker, with loud distorted guitars and stuff. It's slightly
discoish, but what of it? The melody is unbelievably catchy. 'Mistress
And Maid'? Another Elvis Costello collaboration which could also have fit
onto Flowers, but that's not saying anything bad. The problem with
Flowers was that it mostly consisted of such songs and this made
it drag. When they are limited to just one or two numbers, it's perfectly
all right. Next, we have the generic love ballad 'I Owe It All To You',
and the true masterpiece - 'Biker Like An Icon', a creepy story of an unshared
love. It's a generic fast rocker, but it's underpinned by a tasty acoustic
melody, and it's also a great chance for Paul to get a bit raunchy and
over the top. I like it, even if the lyrics are a bit too straightforward
and the story is kinda flat and leaves one wishing for more. Then we have
'Golden Earth Girl', an unbelievably resplendent experimental ballad with
a very unusual structure and psycho lyrics. To my mind, it's the unjustly
forgotten gem on the record - neither does it get airplay nor was it performed
on the tour. Sad, because it's tons better than yet another quasi-Flowers
In The Dirt-outtake - 'The Lovers That Never Were' (which is uncomfortably
similar to the superior 'That Day Is Done' on that record). But not the
terrific rocker 'Get Out Of My Way', oh no not that. It's in no way menacing
and spooky, like 'Biker', and lacks depth and intelligency, but that was
probably just the desired effect. On the other hand, the guitars tear and
roar, the melody is strong, and Paul gets in his last truly outstanding
vocal performance. And how's that about that cute false ending? The closing
riff brings the song to a rough stop, then the guitars suddenly rush in
again and you get one more short instrumental passage before cutting off
dead - this time, forever. Real sweet.
Truly and verily, I know lots of people write off Macca's entire career
after the mid-Seventies like there's no tomorrow. But Off The Ground
is really good. It has his feel for melody re-instated, it gets some blood
flowing and it has a cool album cover. And what else would you expect?
I owe it all to you, so mail me your ideas
Your worthy comments:
<[email protected]> (05.03.2000)
I agree with your views about this album... and I'd like to mention that Macca released a two-disc set called Off the Ground: The Complete Works in the Netherlands. It can cost a pretty penny (you'll likely only find it on ebay) but having the second disc is worth the expense. Disc two is just as good as, if not better then, disc one. It includes a lot of B-sides and rarities, including a full version of "Cosmically Conscious." Excellent material in the same vein as the US version. It's quite a shame that he intended these songs for such a limited release.
<[email protected]> (17.08.2000)
Now THIS I can stomach! This is the closest he's come to the Wings sound since Wings. I always liked 'Biker' despite the lyrics, and even the worst songs are better than those on Press to Play. Still, I don't listen to it as much as I did when it came out.
Sergey Zhilkin <[email protected]> (29.11.2000)
Nice cover. Maybe the best one of Paul's albums (just look at the legs
of Linda (second from the beginning)! He-he-he!). Still good cover doesn't
mean that album is good itself. I don't want to say that Off the ground
is crap or big misstep after Flowers in the dirt (though I think
it's a letdown after that comeback-record). Your reviews about these two
albums are OK but I still don't understand why did you rate Flowers
lower than Off the ground...Stop! My brain is going to break down
if I don't stop... Whew... Yeah, it's alright. You know, I feel the mess
in my head so I'll try to show my ideas step by step, OK? Now, see, Flowers
is a very complicated album. It's not concept but tunes are ...well, not
progressive, but I'm sure you know what I mean. Paul returned to form back
in 1989. But on Off the ground we hear another Paul who is more
simple and more poppy (I'm not sure that there's such word in English but
again you know what I mean). Though I have to admit that Paul tries to
repeat Flowers. But, unfortunately, misses the mark. Just listen
to such songs as 'Mistress and maid' or 'C'mon people'. Paul tries hard
to make melody more serious and complicated but something is wrong. Surely,
this record is a letdown. Other songs like 'Biker like an icon' (well,
it's good and catchy but nothing serious), 'Off the ground' (awful chorus),
'Hope of deliverance'(I'm getting sick and tired from Paul's vocal here)
and 'Get out of my way' are good and catchy (yes! I found the right words
at last! Catchy and jolly!) but they remind me Ringo more than Paul.
My main point is about that you gave Off the ground higher mark
that Flowers in the dirt (and not that you gave it 8/10). Please
compare these two albums again and, maybe, you'll change your opinion.
I'd give Off the ground 7/10 and that's enough for it (remember,
that I rate Flowers 8 or 9 out of 10).
Please, just say what are the reasons of giving pop album higher rating
than to nearly prog one. Ah, it's useless, you can always say that you
just liked it more, that it's your page and you're host here and that you
just want Off the ground get higher rating (and, actually, you'll
be right).
[Special author note: actually,
the reason is very simple - where FITD is a slick 'return to formula'
rather than to form, an album where most of the material is slick and smooth
and mostly follows the same pattern (mid-tempo semi-catchy pop song, apart
from maybe two or three numbers), Off The Ground is more diverse
and less predictable, not to mention more rocking.]
<[email protected]> (07.12.2000)
The followup to the big comeback album Flowers In The Dirt. This
should be an ominous situation, since the last time there had been a big
comeback album (Tug Of War), it was followed by a real dog (Pipes
Of Peace). So it should be considered a major accomplishment
for McCartney that this followup (Off The Ground) is almost as good
as the comeback. To my ears, it sounds like a continuation of Flowers
In The Dirt. Again, the strongest material is the Elvis collaborations,
in this case 'Mistress And Maid' and 'The Lovers That Never Were', both
of which are melodically adventurous and sophisticated. (But has
anybody noticed that, of the seven Macca/Elvis numbers released on Paul's
records, four of them are in waltz-time?) And again, Paul's solo
compositions are generally strong, with 'Off The Ground' (a simple tune
with a big fat sound) and 'Peace In The Neighborhood' (a genuine feel-good
tune) being my favorites of those. I'm also quite partial to 'Biker Like
An Icon' and 'Golden Earth Girl'. Most of the others are nicely written
tunes that don't quite matter much to me, such as 'I Owe It All To You'
and 'Hope Of Deliverance.' Which brings me to the rest: 'Get Out Of My
Way' (which has some nice guitar work and a snappy brass motif, but just
doesn't rock intensely enough); 'C'mon People' (a decent attempt at an
epic if you just slice off that ridiculous 'oh yeah' section); 'Winedark
Open Sea' (a little too melodically dull for me); and 'Looking For Changes'
(the weakest track, not only because the melody is kinda dumb, but because
the lyrics achieve the exact opposite of subtlety).
Off The Ground - The Complete Works, released only in Japan, contains
various b-sides and CD single bonus tracks not included on the regular
album. The b-side of 'Hope Of Deliverance' was 'Long Leather Coat', the
grittiest rocker McCartney had produced in a decade or two. The CD single
also contained 'Big Boys Bickering' (a mediocre countryish political tune)
and 'Kicked Around No More' (a somewhat dull jazz ballad). The b-side of
'C'mon People' was 'I Can't Imagine', a very mediocre pop song. The
CD single also contained 'Keep Coming Back To Love', (a reasonable pop
collaboration with Hamish Stuart) and 'Down To The River' (a good idea
for a song that never went beyond being an idea). The b-side of 'Off The
Ground' (which was a single in the US, but not the UK) was a full edit
of 'Cosmically Conscious', which appears in abridged form on the regular
album. It was apparently written in India in 1968, and gets a lot of psychedelic
mileage out of threadbare material - bottom line: it's damned enjoyable. The
CD single also contains 'Style Style' (a shamelessly sappy pop song), 'Sweet
Sweet Memories' (a much better pop song) and 'Soggy Noodle' (a very short
guitar improvisation with the perfect title).
Not included on even the Japanese double CD is 'Deliverance', which was
released in both regular and dub mixes on a 12-inch single with 'Hope Of
Deliverance' (little bits of which appear in 'Deliverance'). Both
mixes then came out on an alternate UK CD single of 'C'mon People'. They
basically represent a return to the many overlong dub experiments McCartney
indulged in during the eighties.
Year Of Release: 1993
Record rating = 4
Overall rating = 8
Another live album. Paul, wake up! You're no Rolling Stone!
Best song: ????????!!!!!!!!!!!@#$%^&*(
Basically Tripping The Live Fantastic Vol. 2, and the only thing
we should be grateful for is that there are no overlaps with it. Eventually,
that means eliminating classics like 'Hey Jude', 'Get Back' and 'Yesterday'
(only to be replaced with other classics like 'Penny Lane', 'Michelle'
and 'All My Loving'), and eliminating songs from the then-promoted Flowers
In The Dirt (only to be replaced by songs from the now-promoted Off
The Ground). Apart from that and the soothing circumstance of this
one being a single CD, there's really not much difference: the band is
mainly the same, Paul is still in good shape, the classics are still performed
note-by-note, and the silly grooves stay in place ('Robbie's Bit'; the
'soundcheck' section). Also, there are serious overlaps with Unplugged,
like on 'Here There And Everywhere' and 'We Can Work It Out' (at least
Paul doesn't forget the words!)
I must say, I'm really baffled trying to find out why the hell did he think
it was real necessary to release three live albums, one of them double,
in less than five years. Cash-ins? Does anybody really want to buy Paul
Is Live? Who is that person? Oh, sorry, one of them is me. But I only
bought a bootleg copy (please don't sue me), and only for the purpose of
reviewing it here. Now that I've sat through it, I doubt if it will ever
get back onto my CD deck. God, are some people obsessed. Oh, well. At least
there was no tour after Flaming Pie!
C'mon people, mail me your ideas
Your worthy comments:
Sergey Zhilkin <[email protected]> (22.08.2000)
This time overall rating should be smaller than the record rating. Paul is taking highlights from Off the ground (this is VERY good album but do you want hear it once again) and some Beatles songs which are better on original LP. He just prooved that he still had voice but we knew it. Only one pleasant thing for me is another version of 'Good rockin' tonight'(Do you remember fast version on Unplugged). 'New' 'Drive my car' and 'Looking for changes'(a little bit faster than original) are useless. The concert is over but we still have empty space on disc. What will we do? Yes, we'll put 'Kansas city'(Paul! We've heard it on CHOBA B CCCP), silly 'Hotel in Benidorm', another version of 'I wanna be your man' and another surprise - 'A fine day'(Ooh! Better). I don't really know how to rate it. Let's forget about it.
<[email protected]> (11.12.2000)
It is indeed very curious that McCartney released yet another live album
at this time. This sounds like a continuation of Tripping The Live
Fantastic. There's a whole cartload of Beatles tunes, all different
from the ones on Tripping. There are three earlier McCartney solo
tunes: 'My Love' and 'Let Me Roll It', which were both aired out on Wings
Over America, and 'Live And Let Die', which has the distinction of
being the only song to appear on both Tripping and Paul Is Live
(as well as on Wings Over America). And instead of several note-for-note
copies of songs from Flowers In The Dirt, we now have several note-for-note
copies of songs from Off The Ground. And, of course, we also
get a few 'surprises', although these are mostly letdowns: 'Good Rockin'
Tonight' isn't much of a surprise, since we just heard it on Unplugged
(which also had 'We Can Work It Out' and 'Here, There And Everywhere' -
included here); 'Robbie's Bit' is a solo acoustic piece by Robbie McIntosh,
which is actually pretty good; 'Welcome To Soundcheck' is just crickets
buzzing before we get to 'Hotel In Benidorm', a pointless jam with Paul
trying to make up a song on top of it; and 'A Fine Day', a pointless jam
with Paul trying - wait, didn't I just say that? The rest of the
album is okay, though - nothing great, but okay. I will say that
I think 'I Wanna Be Your Man' is pretty cool here, with its Bo Diddley
beat, and that 'Magical Mystery Tour' is downright sluggish and, well,
kinda crappy. Luckily, it's only one CD (the UK got also got a vinyl
version which was a double album, but hey, Tripping had been a triple
album in its vinyl incarnation).
For all the completists out there, I should point out that there was another
McCartney album put out at around the same time as this one, but most people
don't know about it because it's credited to The Fireman, which consists
of McCartney with mixing engineer Youth. It consists of nine tracks
that all have separate titles, but are actually nine different mixes of
the same recording. The recording itself is pretty much a drum beat
with a bunch of synth and sound effects piled onto it. Each of the
nine mixes lasts anywhere from eight to nine minutes. To put it another
way, the vinyl version of this (released in the UK) was a double album.
Now, hold on - I know you're all jumping from your seats to run out and
buy this thing right away, but I forgot to give you the title. It's
called strawberries oceans ships forest (yep, that's all lower case
- and so artsy-fartsy, too!)
Year Of Release: 1997
Record rating = 4
Overall rating = 8
Flaming disaster. The search for simplicity has ended in stupidity
and banality.
Best song: YOUNG BOY
I just gave the damn piece of plastic yet another listen, hoping
that my heart would finally soften. It hasn't. It got worse. I lowered
the rating. Even though 'Young Boy' came as a pleasant surprise for me.
But nothin' else.
What distinguishes this album is two main features: (a) the concept of
'simplicity' so praised by Paul in the liner notes; (b) the general love
of critics toward this album. Both of these are flake. The idea that the
album should be 'simple' came to Paul after working on the Beatles' Anthologies,
and it must have been one of the most bizarre ideas he's ever had - ranks
along with his decision to overabuse electronics in the Eighties. Because,
see, if there's one musician in the world who can never be associated with
the word 'improvisation', it's Sir Paul McCartney. All of his music was
always carefully planned, rehearsed, and immaculately produced - independent
of the actual arrangements. This music seems sloppy, demo-ish and utterly
boring. As for the critics who pan Ram and Red Rose Speedway
but go on to praise Pie as a 'best-of-artist' album (please refer,
for example, to the schizoid band of thugs writing reviews for the All-Music
Guide), well,.I simply have no words. They probably really expected this
album to be great - after all the Anthologies hype, it was comfortable
to raise a 'McCartney revival' propaganda campaign. So really, I wouldn't
be surprised if they'd praised Press To Play, were it to come out
in 1997.
What is there to praise? An incredible, unbelievable lack of melodies -
LACK OF MELODIES ON A McCARTNEY RECORD? Whoever heard that? But it's true!
The fast songs ('The World Tonight', 'If You Wanna', 'Really Love You',
etc.), all have the same melody. The slower songs ('Calico Skies', 'Great
Day') either have a banal melody or none at all. The lyrics are always
below the lowest (even 'Young Boy', which turns out to have the most interesting
hook on here, has lyrics unacceptable to McCartney standards, not that
they are incredibly high, too). Occasional solos by his son don't really
help - they're just generic pieces of boring solo crap. And where are the
production values? Everything is sacrificed in the name of 'simplicity'.
Patchy, dull demos which any person could have easily written. One doesn't
need to be Paul McCartney to make his Flaming Pie. And really,
Paul - there is no need to speculate on Beatles legacy, like naming the
album after one of Lennon's quotes (I think everybody knows that now) and
claiming that it inherits the groovy mood of the early days. It doesn't.
It doesn't even sound like a Beatles tribute band. It just sounds like
a washed-up old badger trying to cash in on the strength of his name, that's
all. And it's a pity. Is there really nothing else left in him? The album's
underarrangements really did Macca a poor service: they showed us all the
'strength' of his songwriting, so that this time there was no escape behind
booming drums, cheezy synths and Elvis Costello. And this strength equals
zero. As much as I hate to admit it, this album is as far removed from
meat'n'potatoes as any generic hogwash of the Nineties like Marilyn Manson
and company. I still give it a 4 because none of it is really nasty, but
that's what a 4 usually is - it's when there's no place on the rock to
hold on to it. Pity, that - now that Linda's dead, he's not likely to ever
return to the big game. I saw him recently at the Montserrat concert broadcast
and he looked really really bad and sang even worse (in fact, he managed
to ruin 'Yesterday', even though the snobby braindead audience seemed happy.
Why shouldn't they - 'look there darling, it's Mr Paul McCartney in person!')
And that was even before Linda's death. Where to now, St Paul?
If you wanna, then you gotta mail me your ideas
Your worthy comments:
Rich Bunnell <[email protected]> (25.08.99)
Yeah, a forgettable album, though I admit that I like "The Song We Were Singing" and "Beautiful Night," though the former only has maybe 2 or 3 lyrics. And I LOVE "The World Tonight." Rough-edged, at least for McCartney, and very ear-catching. But nothing else really jumps out. Yes, that's right, I don't like "Young Boy;" it's banal and boring and I can't believe it was listed as a highlight on the cover sticker. The only other song I remember (I no longer own this album) is "If You Wanna," and that one doesn't excite me too much. I DID give this one a few chances, but it just didn't impress, and while I'm sure Paul had tons of fun hanging around with Jeff Lynne and Steve Miller during production, he didn't convey that fun into a way where the listeners could feel it or enjoy it. And if Paul's gonna title the album after John's inspiration for the name "The Beatles," why couldn't he at least make the title track good? A 3.
Stanislaw Kozlowski <[email protected]> (22.09.99)
Oh, no, no, You are completely wrong. After first listening to the record,
just after first few notes I was sure that I can return to old good days
of Beatles serious music that penetrates the minds of listeners.
On Flaming Pie You can feel that lately Mc Cartney, for a lot of
time was immersed in Beatles old music feeling. Therefore quality of his
songs visibly improved. The first four songs can be listened in one take
without any distraction, or disgust. I cannot remember an McCartney album
in many years to achieve this. And the overall quality of this work had
made it's mark on commercial ratings - Flaming Pie was in five best
sold albums. Again achievement not reached in many years. Jeff Lynne's
additions are scarce but very nice.
Of course there are some mediocre songs - personally I do not like dull
rock'a roll played just for the sake of pounding on instruments.
But in my opinion Flaming Pie had risen to heighs that Paul McCartney
had not reached for a long, long time ( possibly near Beatles mood in some
places ) - and I am very happy that this was even possible.
Scott Aubertine <[email protected]> (27.11.99)
I have been a Beatles fan since the Ed Sullivan show and a McCartney fan since the same time. The more I listen to Pie the more I feel that song for song, it may be the best McCartney album yet.
Mats Fjäll <[email protected]> (28.11.99)
This is his best record, at least of the ones I've heard.
The fun rocking title track, the simple 'Young Boy' and the lovely 'Beutiful
Night' is all songs that should appear on a Macca greatest hits collection.
The nice laid back 'Heaven on a Sunday', 'Souvenir' and 'If You Wanna'
are great too.
But of course there's some weak moments: the first song co-written with
Ringo, 'Really Love You' and the album closer 'Great Day'. Maybe 'Calico
Skies' isn't one of the greatest moments in music history, but yet full
listenble!
mjcarney <[email protected]> (28.06.2000)
I almost agree with you here on this album. I cannot understand why this album was so strongly praised, and Paul's previous release (which isn't all that great either Off The Ground) was panned as strongly as it was. Sure Flaming Pie has some great moments, which is why when I first bought it a few years back I thought it was a tremendous return to form, yet further listens show the typical flaws of any McCartney album and then some. However, the excellent songs such as "The Song we Were Singing" which has a good strong melody, "Calico Sky"--with its beautiful George Martin production, "Souvenir" (I especially like the 20 second ending on this one for some reason) and "Great Day"--which are classics in and of themselves, and yes George "Great Day" has enough of a melody and a hook on it to be one of my favorite Paul solo songs, as it has everything a typical Paul McCartney song has always had, a great hook, a feel good melody, despite some meaningless lyrics. It works well and ends the album terrifically. So with these songs on here I was--even on the first listen-- astounded with the record at first. But, although I am not dissapointed that I bought it, there are some God-awful numbers here which further listens helped define. These would include songs such as the Steve Miller collaboration "Used to Be Bad" and the even worse (which is tough to beat) Ringo collaboration on "Really Love You". Also the typical McCartney overproduced and overly sappy "Beautiful Night" really really Stink! These numbers, along with some other relatively weak tracks drag down the album further. It had some signs of promise, but does not work overall. I would rate it a 5/10 and that is only for the highlights mentioned here. I would reserve this one mainly for completists only.
Dmitry Jilkin <[email protected]> (26.07.2000)
Why? why is it so low? There are many good and VERY good songs, such
as 'The world tonight' (ooh! I love this electric guitar), 'If you wanna',
'Young boy', 'Flaming pie'(Maybe the lyrics are stupid but the melody is
fantastic), soft 'Heaven on a sunday', rockin' 'Souvenir' and beautiful
'Beautiful night' (sorry for play on words). The closing 'Great day' is
maybe too soft but listenable, too.
At the first sight it looks really dull but just give it one chance not
more, it will be enough. Try to listen one song completly and maybe you'll
understand that this album is another comeback after Off the ground.My
ratings are: record rating = 8, overall rating = 12
<[email protected]> (17.08.2000)
I hate Steve Miller so I skip his duet, and 'Really Love You' was an easy way for Ringo to get some royalties. But easily half of these songs are as good as any of his other good songs, and 'Beautiful Night' is another in a long line of GORGEOUS tunes he could write in his sleep. His best album of original tunes since Egg. But not as good as Run Devil Run.
Paul Stadden <[email protected]> (03.09.2000)
This is one of the most underrated albums ever. I loved this album. Every song was fantastic.
<[email protected]> (10.09.2000)
To be honest I disagree with most of your reviews. Pink Floyd is great and the Rolling stones are overrate. However this review takes the cake. Flaming Pie is a fantastic album, one of Pauls best. There are a few flaws here and there like the title track and 'Somedays' but songs like 'Beautiful Night', 'Souvenir', 'Young Boy' and 'Little Willow' more than make up for any flaws.
Sergey Zhilkin <[email protected]> (24.10.2000)
I'm not going to argue with you, George.So many people tried to persuade you but the rating is still the same. It's clear that nothing will make you love this record (except hard brick or bottle of vodka) and I'm not going to ask you to make rating higher. In my opinion it deserves 8/10 and fourth place in chart of Paul's best albums (I goes after Ram, Band on the run and London town).
Teresa Juarez Guzman <[email protected]> (26.11.2000)
This album was nominated for a grammy (not that this should be a compliment) for album of the year. Two of the other competitors were Radiohead's nice but over, and I mean overrated OK Computer and Bob Dylan's astonishing Time Out Of Mind. Now, I'm not much of a music expert, but a fan. And I disagree 180 grades from your perception, George, from Flaming Pie. It's not a masterpiece. O.K. and it surely wasn't meant to be one (just like Pipes Of Peace, which was following a comercial trace hat didn't do a lot of good to Paul in terms of critical acclaim, but that I sure can smile upon its playing!) While Dylan's masterpiece deserved "the gold" (or... "the gold" --that is, the Grammies, of course-- hasn't done a lot to deserve Dylan and McCartney... perhaps Radiohead, but what the hell...), McCartney didn't even bother to appear or reprise his songs in the ceremony. Flaming Pie isn't a crafty record but a fun one (even if it is in a kitschy manner for some listeners... certainly nor for me). I don't think of it as some sort of guilty pleasure (I'd leave that to any country anthem), but as a confirmation of Paul's succesful way to create pop music without sounding like a rehab act. How can you like "Maybe I'm Amazed" or "One Of These Days" (OK.... maybe you didn't like that one...) and do not have a sense of pleasure towards "Beautiful Night". Maybe I'm a product of nostalgia, but I know when an oldie's effort is worth to attend. (And don't give me that nineties' commercial punch as some sort of "selling out" sign. This album hasn't sold numbers near to ... agh... Celine Dion... When we discuss all those Billboard acts like... a double agh... Pavarotti and friends... then we can sure demand that their albums should have never been released, as you seemed to have meant in your 4 points review.) Or maybe Townsend and cia. were right. Rock is dead. Boo-hoo.
<[email protected]> (16.12.2000)
Your coments about flaming pie, and run devil run are so out of site its a wonder you know anything about music.I can tell your not any where near being musically talented, if you were maybe you could be a music critic after all.But I dont think you are so leave it to musicians who know better. [Spetiel othor noat: am I supozed to leeve it to Pol himself, then?]
Year Of Release: 1999
Record rating = 3
Overall rating = 7
Back In USSR Vol. 2. Nothing to say, really.
Best song: LONESOME TOWN
Why, back to the roots, of course! Let me try not to be too much sneering
or pathetic here, as I predict that the critics will blow this album to
pieces. They were forced to give positive reviews to Flaming Pie
in order to support all the 'Anthology-back-to-the-simple-back-to-the-freshness'
hoopla, but nothing will stop them from writing Macca off completely after
they'd even seen the track listing on here.
You know what I'm talking about, don't you? Apparently, in order to stop
the rumours about his being washed up and retiring from the business completely,
Paul decided that one more sip out of the fountain of rock'n'roll wouldn't
hurt, and released an album with fifteen covers of old rock'n'roll, doo-wop
and rockabilly standards, covering acts from Gene Vincent to Ray Charles
to Elvis to some old dudes whom I don't even know but who were probably
quite popular in Liverpool around the late Fifties. Most of the songs are
really really short, and Paul is never actually trying to make the arrangements
interesting, like on Back In USSR; his backing band is fairly unimpressive
this time - professional, but completely soulless. Which is all the more
shameful as it features a handful of rock legends, rthe most notable of
these being none other than Dave Gilmour himself. I'd never have guessed,
though. Dave Gilmour going back to his roots, too? Playing boogie-woogie?
Well, at least you can see now why Dave never made much of a career before
joining Pink Floyd... In other words, a letdown. A letdown?
Actually, what is the purpose of this album? Back In USSR had a
clear purpose: it was Paul's little souvenir to the peoples of Russia,
a slight, delicate throwaway that had pretty much artistic significance
but a lot of bootleg value. Run Devil Run? Maybe it is intended
to be a throwaway, but why would Paul let his reputation suffer so significantly...
again? It is obvious that recording and releasing such a collection is
important to him - probably as a gesture of self-assertion: yes, I can
still do the bop, whatever them picky critics and the younger generation
say. Well, maybe he can, but so do at least several dozen old dinosaurs
that are still around and playing and performing, and many of them do it
much, much better than old fart Paul. Try as you might, you won't find
no 'Long Tall Sally' on this album, and it's also quite understandable
why Paul mostly sticks to more obscure material, like Chuck Berry's 'Brown
Eyed Handsome Man' and other boogie tunes (title track, 'Honey Hush') whose
authors I do not even know: when he does songs that are more well-known
and usually evoke the original versions, it simply sounds horrendous. Me,
for instance, I will never forget him for butchering 'I Got Stung', one
of my favourite Elvis tunes; others will probably cringe at the way he
massacres 'She Said Yeah', 'All Shook Up' or 'Movie Magg'.
The mellower numbers are a little bit more acceptable - 'Lonesome Town'
is stupid, but it somehow gets into your head, and the same goes for 'No
Other Baby' and a couple other tracks. Even so, none of this goes beyond
'cute'; and the worst thing is, it could never even hope to go beyond
'cute'. Wasn't it obvious that the project was doomed from the very start?
Who really needs a fifty-six year old Paul McCartney wiggling his way through
the melodies of his youth when, I dunno, at least we have Mick Jagger who
is still able to do these kinds of things with enough conviction?
On the other hand, there are at least a few things that should be praised
and supported about this album. Actually, not about the album itself, but
about Paul's decision to make it. First, let us not forget that Back
In USSR immediately preceded Flowers In The Dirt, Paul's famous
comeback album which, if not fully, at least partially pulled him out of
the slump where he'd spent most of the Eighties. In that sense, I do not
exclude that Paul will be able to follow Devil with a more or less
solid original work - we just have to wait and see. Second, like I said
before, this is a serious self-assertion move: I sincerely hope that making
this album has helped him in overcoming the loss of Linda and in rejuvenating
his organism, at least a little. He didn't shoot himself, go on drugs or
start anti-depressants: so much for the better, after all, isn't rock'n'roll
the best cure for all diseases? Third, while nothing on here is really
valuable, none of the tracks are actually horrible - Paul is no David Bowie,
and he never approaches the old standards with a perverted mind to render
them unlistenable. You can listen to this and not be ashamed. In that sense,
my final judgement will be a bit contradictive: I'm really glad that this
album exists, but I wouldn't advise anybody to waste his/her cash on it.
And if you're a completist, chances are that you'll soon see multiple copies
in used bins, too.
P.S. I see now that I was somewhat wrong in my predictions - just visited
the All-Music Guide and they gave the album a suppah-duppah review, calling
it something like a truly great record coming right after one of Paul's
best solo efforts. Well, there are two possible explanations: either they
just feel pity for poor Paul and do not consider it appropriate to bash
the record out of ethical considerations (in which case I understand them,
but call on you to never trust the AMG as their opinions are always conventional),
or, more probable, the critical industry has recently underwent a massive
atack of paranoia as a whole (in which case you should never trust anyone
but yourself, brother).
Run devil run, mail your ideas now
Your worthy comments:
zwetan <[email protected]> (30.03.2000)
Paul McCartney rocks with Pink Floyd...that album is simply fun! Just listen how really hard he rocks all the time. And listen how he proves that he's still one of the finest rock-vocalists around.
mjcarney <[email protected]> (28.06.2000)
George, I have to disagree strongly with your review here. Sure a return to roots for McCartney might seem like a bad idea, what with is Back in the USSR(which I have never heard) and even Unplugged(which is also enjoyable) releases, but this one is actually quite good. I was as skeptical of this album, as you seem to be--maybe even more so, as Paul has in my opinion had the most disappointing solo career of the main three Beatles- he,Lennon, and Harrison. I have bought over half of his releases (because there are always enough songs to drive me to spend my money and ultimately in time wishing that I hadn't), but this album was different. I was curious enough to go ahead and buy the album, not reallly expecting too much. On the first few listens, I was thinking in my typical cynical Paul McCartney way--oh boy isn't this crap--but then it clicked with me. There is enough material on here to make this album pretty good. "Blue Jean Bop", "Movie Magg" (which is great!!!), "Brown-eyed Handsome Man", "No Other Baby"and the natural Fats Domino cover "Coquette" are the highlights of the covers. His originals aren't half bad either with "Try Not to Cry" being the stand out there. This album is ultimately rewarding, even if it really isn't a substantial or artistic statement, or progression in Paul's music. It ultimately works, and is fine overall. I would rate it a 7.5/10 it's fun, energetic, but really not ultimately essential unless you are a fan.
Sergey Zhilkin <[email protected]> (24.10.2000)
Oh, come on! It's not so bad as you say. Paul is surely having fun here
and performance is okay. Why people dislike it so much? There are only
four Paul's songs but they have their drive and tunes stay in your head
for days ('Run devil run', 'What is it' and 'Try not to cry'). Don't take
this record seriously, it's only fun! You don't expect anything groundbreaking
from Ringo, do you? The same situation's here.
Surely this record is easy way for Paul, but why do you dismiss it? The
same thing hapenned to Stones' It's only rock'n'roll - you said
that it was too simple way for Stones. Maybe. No, not maybe - it's fact
but say that you enjoyed it and enjoyed 'Run devil run', too, didn't you?
So you lowed ratings only because of most critic's opinion? Strange, I've
just learnt that you gave Harrison's Extra Texture 7/10 though most
of critics dismiss it.
Well, maybe I'm missing point here because I was blasted by this record.
You know, I needed shot of rock'n'roll and I got it! Surely you wasn't
moved by 'Run devil run' so much (better to say: at all) but look: You
gave it 7/15 which means it's bad while it's somewhat mediocre at least.
PLE-E-E-E-A-A-A-A-SE, make it a little bit higher. My rating is 6/10.
Year Of Release: 1999
Record rating = 5
Overall rating = 9
The old stuff is awesome, but the originals are, well, not thoroughly
impressive.
Best song: MAYBE I'M AMAZED
I have been mostly staying away from Paul's classical work all these
years - had a chance to buy Standing Stone cheap, but missed it
intentionally, and hearing this album doesn't really make me want to regret
my decision. It ain't just because I'm not a 'fan' of classical music or
anything: I'm just not a big connoisseur of the classics, and I'd be hard
pressed to describe a 'classical' record, especially written by a modern
composer, not to mention a modern composer whose main specialty is not
classical. Also, Paul McCartney is certainly no Frank Zappa: whereas Frank
mostly got into 'classical' with his usual experimentalist purposes, trying
to continue the avantgarde line of Varese and company, Paul mostly got
into 'classical' with just the purpose of testing his forces in the genre.
There's nothing 'avantgarde' about the compositions on this album - most
of them are fairly traditionalist, and none break any new ground. The only
difference from the two classical albums Paul had done earlier is thus
the instrumental rearrangements of some of Paul's 'rock' material, and
that's the main reason I actually bought this album: I suspected that the
'original' stuff would be dismissable, but the rearrangements could be
interesting. And I was right.
There are three lengthy 'symphonies' here - entitled 'A Leaf', 'Spiral'
and 'Tuesday' - and well, what can I say? As far as I can see, they're
horrendously derivative of Russian symphonic music, especially the entire
'Leaf' and the first half of 'Spiral' which are almost ripped off of Tchaikowsky.
I have not the slightest reason to go listen to these and skip the master,
and, indeed, I don't recommend this to the fans at all. Yeah, just
because it's McCartney, zillions of fans will rush out to buy it and then
pretend it's great. Okay, maybe it's great, but if it's great, it's certainly
not the fault of Paul himself. Not to mention that 'Tuesday' is, for the
most part, abominable - tons of orchestral sap with an almost undistinguishable
theme (sometimes I wonder if there is a theme). This is, in fact,
pure 'mannerism' - he's going for a symphonic sound, but he's forgetting
about substance. Just like he forgot about the substance while recording
Flaming Pie, in amidst all the 'tremendous fan'; don't you think
he's actually repeating himself?
Things, however, get much better when he ditches the London Symphony Orchestra
and just presents his efforts to the 'Loma Mar Quartet' - a string quartet,
right. The two 'originals', 'Haymakers' and 'Midwife', recorded with the
quartet, are short, cute and gentle, especially the former. But the most
interesting, for me, at least, are the 'remakes' of old McCartney classics.
'Junk' sounds truly awesome when performed by a string quartet - in fact,
the result is so strikingly Vivaldi-esque that I'm seriously starting to
consider the possibility of the tune being originally ripped off of some
Eighteenth century, pre-Mozartian dude. Same goes for 'Maybe I'm Amazed'
- the strings arrangement is majestic, and I have not the least doubt that
adding a strings section to the original would have provided it even more
grandeur and convincibility. The main problem is that these versions are
so short you barely notice them in between the mastodontic orchestral 'sludge'.
Apart from that, Paul has a really strange selection of choices. Okay,
'My Love' is probably predictable, and this string quartet version might
even be better than the regular version. But 'Warm And Beautiful'? That's
easily the schlockiest tune on Speed Of Sound, and no strings are
gonna save this one. 'She's My Baby'? Man! Why not 'Silly Love Songs' or
'Jet', then? Actually, the way the guys try to make their way through 'She's
My Baby' is downright ridiculous - now here's one tune that's definitely
untranslatable into classical, and yet, they try to make their best and
fall flat on their face. And, of course, Paul never misses the chance to
insert some reference to Flaming Pie: both 'Calico Skies' and 'Somedays'
are reprised, and both of them are completely unremarkable. 'Golden Earth
Girl' sounds fun, though, a bit sad and moody, and the decision to end
the record with a one-minute snippet of 'The Lovely Linda' is perfectly
understandable - after all, this is all mostly in memoriam.
In fact, I've been thinking: wouldn't it be nice for Paul to make this
his last recorded effort? In that case, his solo career would be splendidly
bookmarked - opening with 'Lovely Linda' on McCartney and closing
with 'Lovely Linda' on WC. One could say that his entire solo output
was recorded as some kind of loving tribute to his wife, then: what a great
banner to be recording under... but I digress. Anyway, this record is not
at all bad or anything, and the fact that Paul doesn't sing or doesn't
try to rock out never makes it such an 'old man embarrassment' as Run
Devil Run. Even so, recommended for the diehard only, and exclusively
because of these nice little rearrangements. The original stuff is just
another historic curio, nothing else.
Maybe I'm amazed, but there's still too few ideas around anyway
Your worthy comments:
Bob Josef <[email protected]> (14.09.2000)
An interesting experiment. I do tend to agree that the lengthy pieces
with the symphony, while listenable, are kind of formless. It's as if he
was trying to say, "I better not write any of those pop melodies,
'cause I'm a SERIOUS composer now." When actually, many of the great
works have, lets face it, catchy melodies. (otherwise, stuff like Mozart's
"The Magic Flute" wouldn't have been so popular -- but I digress..)
If Paul had applied his natural gifts to these pieces, who knows what he
could have come up with? The only thing that really stands out is a section
of "Tuesday" that is rather dark and disturbing -- hardly the
happy, trippy "Tuesday Afternoon" of the Moody Blues!
The quartet stuff is better. I actually think that "Warm and Beautiful"
and "My Love" do surpass the originals. In this intimate setting
(and without the hopelessly corny lyrics), the superslick sentimental sappiness
of the former and the overblown , overproduced sentimental sappiness of
the latter are stripped away. And "Maybe I'm Amazed" sounds really
out of place her. It doesn't sound like a serious classical piece -- it's
more like a bunch of git fiddlers are down on the farm for a hoe-down.
Not that that's so bad -- it's the only thing fun about the album. Otherwise,
the album is just OK background music.
Year Of Release: 1977
An essential album to own if you're an amateur, and even more essential
if you're a fan. Amateurs will certainly dig it cuz it has all the radio
standards - 'Band On The Run' is here, and 'Jet', and 'With A Little Luck',
and 'Let 'Em In', and 'My Love', and, last but not least, 'Silly Love Songs'.
It even features one pre-Wings track - 'Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey' from
Ram, which makes the album's title look somewhat suspicious. I regret
the exclusion of a terrible lot of tracks that really showcase Macca so
much more than these excellent, but commercial hits, but what can you do?
It's a financial world we're living in... Obviously, it's compilations
like that that make people at the worst write off Paul's career as stupid
pop crap, and at the best say that 'oh, he writes memorable tunes, but
they're shallow and insubstantial'. Go buy Red Rose Speedway and
we'll see what's unsubstantial.
Fans will also want to get this record for the multiple hit singles that
didn't make it onto the original LP's (some of these are now added as bonus
tracks to original releases, but some still aren't available elsewhere).
These include his first solid solo effort ('Another Day', so mercilessly
thrashed by Lennon in 'How Do You Sleep'); the notorious James Bond half-instrumental
('Live And Let Die'); the raunchy drug anthem 'Hi Hi Hi', banned on radiostations;
and the maturest of all, the song that redeems all the lightweight material
on here - 1974's 'Junior's Farm', a psycho rocker much in the Band On
The Run style. Plus there's yet another Brit anthem of the London
Town era - the pseudo-folk chant 'Mull Of Kintyre' with an obsidious
but memorable refrain. So, this record really runs the gamut from non-serious
pop ditties to clever and significant psycho-rock. Unfortunately, people
prefer to concentrate on the first and forget about the second. The great
power of Mr Bias, no doubt.
Year Of Release: 1986
A nice, hour-long interview with Paul including extracts from clips and live performances. The banter is mostly useless, even if it does shed some light on Paul's solo career, like his intricating relationships with other band members and stuff. But the musical stuff is for the most part extremely entertaining. Even the footage of Paul recording 'Press' in the studio (the video was probably used as promotional for Press To Play) is interesting, and you know how much I hate that album. The snatches of live Wings' performances are the real highlights ('Wild Life', 'Hi Hi Hi', 'Maybe I'm Amazed' and 'Jet' are terrific, and even the sugary 'My Love' is almost spectacular), plus you'll have a glimpse of how 'cool' (ahem) Paul looks in conventional dress while playing 'Goodnight Tonight', enjoy his solo acoustic performance of 'Peggy Sue', and have some fun at the videos of 'Helen Wheels' and 'Waterfalls'. Footage from the Tug Of War sessions shows us the last period of time when Paul still did look young, because the extracts from the Prince's Gala in 1986, where he gets to perform 'I Saw Her Standing There' and 'Long Tall Sally', aren't that inspiring. That's when his voice begins to fail him, you know. But, since the majority of the numbers comes from his pre-lousy period, it's still a hell of a video. Look for it cheap.
Year Of Release: 1989
This one's significantly worse: it concentrates on the making of Flowers In The Dirt and, besides the obligatory banter, all you get is footage from the sessions (a lot of it, though). So if you liked the album, you'll probably want to get the video, too. It has one major point: you get a chance to dig down into the peculiarities of Paul's working process, since most of the songs are 'explained' before they are launched. Fans of Elvis Costello will also rob to get this, because he's featured on 'My Brave Face' (even though briefly). The major surprise in the track selection is 'C Moon' (a very old single, actually, it was the B-side to 'Hi Hi Hi'), performed quite well. Paul's band is highly professional, but you know that from the albums already. What else? Nothing.
Year Of Release: 1993
The latest tour. This is the video companion to Paul Is Live, so I'm not gonna discuss it here. Recommended for the hugest fans only, because for me, Paul isn't a really huge attraction live. He does inflame the audience, but somehow it just doesn't get on through the VCR. The most interesting part is the film accompanying the tour: a fifteen-minute collage of various footage (Paul live, Paul at home, Paul's history, and Paul's latest Greenpeace obsession, all set to various Beatles and McCartney solo music). But it's too short and too derivative to be a good target for money-spending. As for the concert itself - you decide. The playing is good, but I don't enjoy looking at the faces of Paul's backup bands. And they do appear there a lot.