Rolling Stone top 50 albums of the year
-
I'm surprised (and pleased! ) that they ranked Paul so high, even coming in ahead of that highly anticipated album from Arcade Fire. I notice that John Fogerty's album is #10, I think he and Paul are the only "older" artists to crack the top 20... If nothing else, having NEW appear so high on that list may make a few more people curious enough about its high ranking to give it a listen.
-
I do think this "is" a big deal! Yes, RS has been pretty positive towards Macca especially over the last 20 plus years but I can't recall Paul ever getting this high with one of his albums on RS's End of Year Album Ranking. Maybe he did with Tug of War but certainly not with Flaming Pie, Chaos or his other albums since Tug. When you consider how many albums are released in a year by so many talented and younger artists, this is a tremendous achievement for Paul. Like others have said here, I'm not sure this ranking will have "legs" and help "NEW" in Sales. Certainly, I hope so. If Paul starts making other 2013 Best Album Lists, it would definitely help. And hitting Top 5 on RS's list a great start. I'm beginning to think that Paul at 71 really marches to his own drum and schedule. With all of his achievements, I'm not sure that CD Sales and hitting high on the Billboard Charts are a great priority for him. It is for the younger artists like Miley, Katy and Justin, but probably not so much for Paul who has reach so many milestones over so many years. That's the only reason to explain why he isn't hitting the big US TV shows in December with all the critical acclaim given to NEW. If that is the case, it is perfectly understandable. Maybe rest is his biggest priority right now knowing he is in for a big tour year in 2014. If he does tour the US in 2014 and generously plays NEW tracks, the sales of NEW will continue anyway. Contrary to what some on this board are saying, I don't think NEW will be a flop from a Sales point of view "in the long run". I do think NEW will sell consistently for months to come and by the end of 2014, the "total" sales will be relatively successful especially for a 71 year old artist.
-
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year "Everybody Out There". Just curious if anyone has seen NEW making any other "Year End" Top Album lists for 2013 from their local newspaper music sections. Most of the big metropolitan papers come out with these "Best Of" music lists. I saw PEOPLE Magazine'ss Top 10 albums for 2013. While Chuck Arnold (I think that is his last name) gave NEW a terrific review upon release date and had NEW in his best Fall Album list, Paul didn't make his Year End List. Chuck really is more into the younger artists so it didn't surprise me. I think the only veteran artist making Chuck's year end list was Pearl Jam and they were #8 or 9 I think. Even if Paul didn't make many of these Year End lists, the most important of all in the US is probably Rolling Stone so this was a great feat in my opinion.
-
B J Conlee:
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year "Everybody Out There". Just curious if anyone has seen NEW making any other "Year End" Top Album lists for 2013 from their local newspaper music sections. Most of the big metropolitan papers come out with these "Best Of" music lists. I saw PEOPLE Magazine'ss Top 10 albums for 2013. While Chuck Arnold (I think that is his last name) gave NEW a terrific review upon release date and had NEW in his best Fall Album list, Paul didn't make his Year End List. Chuck really is more into the younger artists so it didn't surprise me. I think the only veteran artist making Chuck's year end list was Pearl Jam and they were #8 or 9 I think. Even if Paul didn't make many of these Year End lists, the most important of all in the US is probably Rolling Stone so this was a great feat in my opinion.
NY Times critics did their top picks in "Pop" and Jazz" and McCartney was not on any of the lists. Like you said RS having "New" #4 is pretty big accomplishmnet.
-
I agree that "New" getting such a good review and ranking from RS is a big thing. But to suggest they've been good to him over the years is fiction. All I need to point you to is their list of the 100 greatest artists of all-time. He's not on it. If you relate Lennon's position to the list to an approximation of where Macca should be, it's ludicrous that he's not there. Also, if you look at the list at www.digitaldreamdoor.com (an outstanding lists site), their all-time list tends to indicate that there's a "conventional" ranking of artists similar to how most experts of a certain sport would rank the greats in a relatively similar order. When you look at where Macca ranks in the 70s list, compared to other artists whose resumes are completely or mostly based on the 70s, then look where those artists rank on the all-time list, it's Macca's ranking alone that looks completely out of whack on an all-time list. (digitaldreamdoor is as guilty as RS of this!) here's a quote of my deeper analysis on the topic from before:
This is a great site with some well-done lists done up by panels of knowledgeable fans: http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/ In "greatest rock artists" they of course named the Beatles #1. Lennon, McCartney and Harrison are not on the list at all. This leads me to believe that they were excluded by virtue of being "counted" as Beatles. However, there are three Clapton entries here, just like on the RS list: solo, Cream, Yardbirds. But he was "just" a guitarist in the Yardbirds, and at best 20% of the creativity in Cream, so you could say he's really only there as a creative force once. Now, if Lennon and McCartney were to be placed on the list as solo artists, I speculate as follows: In the 1970s list, where they didn't have to worry about listing either of them twice, Lennon came out 18th and Macca/Wings 14th. Of course not all the decade lists are going to be perfectly congruent with the all-time lists, but if you compare to a few bands on the 70s list whose legacies are almost entirely based on the 70s, and then extrapolate to the all-time list, you can get a good idea of where they'd place them: Led Zeppelin: #2 in the 70s, #8 all-time Pink Floyd: #4 in the 70s, #13 all-time Eagles: #6 in the 70s, #63 all-time Sabbath: #11 in the 70s, #20 all-time Bowie: #13 in the 70s, #18 all-time Parliament/Funkadelic: #15 in the 70s, #54 all-time Fleetwood Mac: #17 in the 70s, #59 all-time Bee Gees: #19 in the 70s, #90 all-time Chicago: #20 in the 70s, #96 all-time Bob Marley: #21 in the 70s, #23 all-time EWF: #23 in the 70s, #100 all-time Al Green: #24 in the 70s, #24 all-time Kiss: #26 in the 70s, NR all-time The Clash: #27 in the 70s, #34 all-time Ramones: #39 in the 70s, #57 all-time Most of the above artists were not listed at all in the top-100 lists for the 60s or 80s. Those who were, were past 60th. If an artist was above 60th for another decade, then their all-time ranking would have to be considered too skewed by decades other than the 70s. Otherwise it was safe to say their legacy was entirely or mostly based on the 70s. Anyway, based on this, I can only conclude that John and Paul are not included in the all-time list as solo artists solely because they were Beatles. Clearly 14th and 18th in the 70s translates to a spot well within the top-100 all-time: I plotted these results out in excel and drew a trendline. It appears that 14th and 18th in the 70s correspond to about 44th and 58th all-time. That is fair for both of them. My personal preference would be that they're higher, but the history of rock/pop music is long and contains many sub-genres. Macca was also 71st in the 80s, and though he was not listed in the 90s and 00s, he's been releasing good music and is one of the five biggest concert draws in the world, so although Lennon did nothing after 1980 to move up (sadly) you have to think that Macca's 44th ranking is a bare minimum. How high up from 44th he should go is up for debate of course. But in any case, this is solid evidence that RS underrates Paul (by leaving him off the list) and overrates John (by putting him up in 31st). Interestingly, they attempted another list, the 300 greatest popular artists of all-time, and from the looks of it, it tries to account for all of the 1900s and on, and encompasses everything; Country, jazz, blues, pure pop (abba is on there but not on the 70s rock/pop list for example), crooners like Sinatra, super early pioneers like Jelly Roll Morton, Blind Lemon Jefferson, Scott Joplin and Lead Belly - and in seeminly equal proportion, I might add. http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_artistspop.html Anyway... you'll notice Macca's on there at 167 and Lennon at 174. (Beatles are #1). As Beatles and Macca idolizers, I know we'll all point at names they should be ahead of, but on an all-time, all-inclusive list like this, I can say it's reasonable. Again, though, proof that when everything is considered, It's not justifiable to have John Lennon a massive ways ahead of Paul Mccartney.
-
Somebody has WAY too much time on their hands!
-
Nancy R:
Somebody has WAY too much time on their hands!
Nah. Easy job.
-
yankeefan7:
Bruce M.:
CAA:
I'm happy for Paul, too...but I take *anything* RS publishes with a grain of salt. Yoko must have given Jann Wenner permission to rank "New" so high.
This is just silly. RS has been more than fair to Paul, and generally positive about his work overall. That said, their lists are humorously inconsistent. For example, in their list of greatest songs of all time, "Hey Jude" is the highest-ranking Beatles tune, but in their list of greatest Beatles songs, "Hey Jude" is only #7, behind "Something," "Yesterday," "A Day in the Life" and several others. Go figure.
Exactly. McCartney has been getting pretty darn good RS reviews from most of his records since FITD. RS also loved TOW in the early 80's.Some people on this board will never get over RS initially trashing RAM and BTW RS was not the only critics who trashed it when it was released.
RS totally trashed Macca's music when John was alive, with the reviewer often comparing Paul to John in a very unfavorable light. With the exception of BOTR, most all of their reviews of Macca's albums from the 70s through to MII was very heavy-handed. This was when RS still had influence. Manny Macca fans will never forgive RS for this unfair treatment.
-
JoeySmith:
yankeefan7:
Bruce M.:
CAA:
I'm happy for Paul, too...but I take *anything* RS publishes with a grain of salt. Yoko must have given Jann Wenner permission to rank "New" so high.
This is just silly. RS has been more than fair to Paul, and generally positive about his work overall. That said, their lists are humorously inconsistent. For example, in their list of greatest songs of all time, "Hey Jude" is the highest-ranking Beatles tune, but in their list of greatest Beatles songs, "Hey Jude" is only #7, behind "Something," "Yesterday," "A Day in the Life" and several others. Go figure.
Exactly. McCartney has been getting pretty darn good RS reviews from most of his records since FITD. RS also loved TOW in the early 80's.Some people on this board will never get over RS initially trashing RAM and BTW RS was not the only critics who trashed it when it was released.
RS totally trashed Macca's music when John was alive, with the reviewer often comparing Paul to John in a very unfavorable light. With the exception of BOTR, most all of their reviews of Macca's albums from the 70s through to MII was very heavy-handed. This was when RS still had influence. Manny Macca fans will never forgive RS for this unfair treatment.
-
I can never forgive RS for the awful and unfair review of "Ram" in 1971. Back then RS was a huge influence on the music industry and for them to trash probably one of the finest albums EVER just showed incompetence and anger. The review of "Venus and Mars" was also very negative and not accurate at all. And recently, the review of "Memory Almost Full" was incredibly lazy journalism; did the author actually listen to the album? I think not.
-
wingsoverkc:
I can never forgive RS for the awful and unfair review of "Ram" in 1971. Back then RS was a huge influence on the music industry and for them to trash probably one of the finest albums EVER just showed incompetence and anger. The review of "Venus and Mars" was also very negative and not accurate at all. And recently, the review of "Memory Almost Full" was incredibly lazy journalism; did the author actually listen to the album? I think not.
I'm not overly familiar with all of RS's review of Paul over the years except in general terms, I agree that they've treated Paul more favorably from Flowers in the Dirt through current than they did back in the 70's. But the only thing I want to note is that regarding Ram (and McCartney 1 for that matter) is that I think the world of journalism as a whole seemed pretty upset with Paul at the time and negative reviews of those albums were the norm...it's nice to see these two pieces have been revisited in more recent times (not while still in the pall cast by the Beatles breaking up) and have received the accolades they deserve...but I find the media in general to be all about jumping the bandwagon and in that way, I can't fault RS any more than any of the publications who decided to draw lines in the sand. Not sure if (more specifically) this was all fall out from Paul's little letter he released along with the release of McC1, the fact that he was acting 'normal' (i.e wanted to settle down into married life) vs like a 'rock star' or some combination of all of the above...but something didn't sit with them very well and I think it's something we mere mortals will never understand...but that all the players involve fully understand (after all, who here in their personal, mere 'mortal' life would rip into someone for wanted to settle down into a life of marriage along with the standard responsibilities that comes with that?)
-
wingsoverkc:
I can never forgive RS for the awful and unfair review of "Ram" in 1971. Back then RS was a huge influence on the music industry and for them to trash probably one of the finest albums EVER just showed incompetence and anger. The review of "Venus and Mars" was also very negative and not accurate at all. And recently, the review of "Memory Almost Full" was incredibly lazy journalism; did the author actually listen to the album? I think not.
RS was not the only ones that trashed RAM, it was received quite negatively by almost everyone in the media when it was released. People may disagree but to blame just RS is unfair. See below. "Playboy accused McCartney of "substituting facility for any real substance", and compared it to "watching someone juggle five guitars: It's fairly impressive, but you keep wondering why he bothers." Robert Christgau, writing in The Village Voice, called it "a bad record, a classic form/content mismatch", and felt that McCartney succumbed to "conspicuous consumption" by overworking himself and obscenely producing a style of music meant to be soft and whimsical. Writing some four years later, Roy Carr and Tony Tyler from NME suggested that "it would be naive to have expected the McCartneys to produce anything other than a mediocre record ... Grisly though this was, McCartney was to sink lower before rescuing his credibility late in 1973. His fellow ex-Beatles, all of whom were riding high in the critics' favour with their recent releases, were likewise vocal in their negativity. Lennon famously hated the album, dismissing his former songwriting partner's efforts as "muzak to my ears" in his song "How Do You Sleep?". Even the affable Starr told Britain's Melody Maker: "I feel sad about Paul's albums ... I don't think there's one [good] tune on the last one, Ram ... he seems to be going strange."
-
yankeefan7:
wingsoverkc:
I can never forgive RS for the awful and unfair review of "Ram" in 1971. Back then RS was a huge influence on the music industry and for them to trash probably one of the finest albums EVER just showed incompetence and anger. The review of "Venus and Mars" was also very negative and not accurate at all. And recently, the review of "Memory Almost Full" was incredibly lazy journalism; did the author actually listen to the album? I think not.
RS was not the only ones that trashed RAM, it was received quite negatively by almost everyone in the media when it was released. People may disagree but to blame just RS is unfair. See below. "Playboy accused McCartney of "substituting facility for any real substance", and compared it to "watching someone juggle five guitars: It's fairly impressive, but you keep wondering why he bothers." Robert Christgau, writing in The Village Voice, called it "a bad record, a classic form/content mismatch", and felt that McCartney succumbed to "conspicuous consumption" by overworking himself and obscenely producing a style of music meant to be soft and whimsical. Writing some four years later, Roy Carr and Tony Tyler from NME suggested that "it would be naive to have expected the McCartneys to produce anything other than a mediocre record ... Grisly though this was, McCartney was to sink lower before rescuing his credibility late in 1973. His fellow ex-Beatles, all of whom were riding high in the critics' favour with their recent releases, were likewise vocal in their negativity. Lennon famously hated the album, dismissing his former songwriting partner's efforts as "muzak to my ears" in his song "How Do You Sleep?". Even the affable Starr told Britain's Melody Maker: "I feel sad about Paul's albums ... I don't think there's one [good] tune on the last one, Ram ... he seems to be going strange."
With talk like that...No wonder Ringo was beheaded in Liverpool!
-
Thisbe211:
And I'm sure Paul is just "thrilled" to once again follow after Kanye West! (Who was number 2)
His music is purely number two as well.
-
KingMacca:
Thisbe211:
And I'm sure Paul is just "thrilled" to once again follow after Kanye West! (Who was number 2)
His music is purely number two as well.
-
yankeefan7:
wingsoverkc:
I can never forgive RS for the awful and unfair review of "Ram" in 1971. Back then RS was a huge influence on the music industry and for them to trash probably one of the finest albums EVER just showed incompetence and anger. The review of "Venus and Mars" was also very negative and not accurate at all. And recently, the review of "Memory Almost Full" was incredibly lazy journalism; did the author actually listen to the album? I think not.
RS was not the only ones that trashed RAM, it was received quite negatively by almost everyone in the media when it was released. People may disagree but to blame just RS is unfair. See below. "Playboy accused McCartney of "substituting facility for any real substance", and compared it to "watching someone juggle five guitars: It's fairly impressive, but you keep wondering why he bothers." Robert Christgau, writing in The Village Voice, called it "a bad record, a classic form/content mismatch", and felt that McCartney succumbed to "conspicuous consumption" by overworking himself and obscenely producing a style of music meant to be soft and whimsical. Writing some four years later, Roy Carr and Tony Tyler from NME suggested that "it would be naive to have expected the McCartneys to produce anything other than a mediocre record ... Grisly though this was, McCartney was to sink lower before rescuing his credibility late in 1973. His fellow ex-Beatles, all of whom were riding high in the critics' favour with their recent releases, were likewise vocal in their negativity. Lennon famously hated the album, dismissing his former songwriting partner's efforts as "muzak to my ears" in his song "How Do You Sleep?". Even the affable Starr told Britain's Melody Maker: "I feel sad about Paul's albums ... I don't think there's one [good] tune on the last one, Ram ... he seems to be going strange."
__________________________________________________ The early 70's was a long, long time ago and all that criticism towards his work at the time seems pretty weak and inconsequential at this point. As we now look at Paul's total career in 2014, he has proven all the pundits wrong. His longevity of writing such creative and diverse music is unbelievable. If you only look at the last 20-25 years, Paul has given the world incredible music. Albums like Flowers in the Dirt, Flaming Pie, Chaos, MAF and now New will only grow in respect as his legend continues. Even critics who don't like Macca for whatever reason now have to concede that he has tremendous talent. They know that for them to say otherwise would make them look pretty darn stupid.
-
B J Conlee:
yankeefan7:
wingsoverkc:
I can never forgive RS for the awful and unfair review of "Ram" in 1971. Back then RS was a huge influence on the music industry and for them to trash probably one of the finest albums EVER just showed incompetence and anger. The review of "Venus and Mars" was also very negative and not accurate at all. And recently, the review of "Memory Almost Full" was incredibly lazy journalism; did the author actually listen to the album? I think not.
RS was not the only ones that trashed RAM, it was received quite negatively by almost everyone in the media when it was released. People may disagree but to blame just RS is unfair. See below. "Playboy accused McCartney of "substituting facility for any real substance", and compared it to "watching someone juggle five guitars: It's fairly impressive, but you keep wondering why he bothers." Robert Christgau, writing in The Village Voice, called it "a bad record, a classic form/content mismatch", and felt that McCartney succumbed to "conspicuous consumption" by overworking himself and obscenely producing a style of music meant to be soft and whimsical. Writing some four years later, Roy Carr and Tony Tyler from NME suggested that "it would be naive to have expected the McCartneys to produce anything other than a mediocre record ... Grisly though this was, McCartney was to sink lower before rescuing his credibility late in 1973. His fellow ex-Beatles, all of whom were riding high in the critics' favour with their recent releases, were likewise vocal in their negativity. Lennon famously hated the album, dismissing his former songwriting partner's efforts as "muzak to my ears" in his song "How Do You Sleep?". Even the affable Starr told Britain's Melody Maker: "I feel sad about Paul's albums ... I don't think there's one [good] tune on the last one, Ram ... he seems to be going strange."
__________________________________________________ The early 70's was a long, long time ago and all that criticism towards his work at the time seems pretty weak and inconsequential at this point. As we now look at Paul's total career in 2014, he has proven all the pundits wrong. His longevity of writing such creative and diverse music is unbelievable. If you only look at the last 20-25 years, Paul has given the world incredible music. Albums like Flowers in the Dirt, Flaming Pie, Chaos, MAF and now New will only grow in respect as his legend continues. Even critics who don't like Macca for whatever reason now have to concede that he has tremendous talent. They know that for them to say otherwise would make them look pretty darn stupid.
I agree with you and have often stated the critics have been very positive of McCartney's work since FITD and even pointed out RS liked "Press To Play" more than most fans on this board. My response was basically to all the people who can't get over McCartney getting bad reviews in the 1970's. from RS. Personally, I never thought RAM was that great either and still don't. It is not awful but it is not a "classic" IMO.
-
"Ram" sounds mostly fantastic, to my ears And I trust my ears, that I know what sounds good. That's just to me in my own little world. Art is subjective. So many agree with me that "Ram" is very special. It's interesting to see other reactions, however.