Tug of War 2015 Remix / Track by Track review
-
Is that on Youtube? I need to watch that.
-
RMartinez:
B J Conlee:
RMartinez:
A lot of folks here are acting like E&I was some sort of anomaly for Paul. It wasn't. It is pure McCartney, exactly what he wanted to write and put out, and it is what he is known for. Songs like that. Yes, he wrote Tug Of War, Junior's Farm, and Girls School, but he also put out Silly Love Songs, With A Little Luck, and Ebony and Ivory. It's what he does. To blame George Martin's production of the song for why people crinkle their nose at it today is just ludicrous.
______________________________________________ RMartinez, You're right regarding your last point. While didn't mean that George Martin was the main problem with E&I, I can see how anyone could interpret as such from my previous reply. In retrospect, I have never seen any quote from Mr. Martin regarding the production on E&I, either positive or negative. The other factor that I should realize is that even if George didn't like the results, it is very hard (even for a producer as prestigious as Mr. Martin) for anyone to tell 2 of the greatest artists on the planet that he didn't like their result. I would be very curious of the reasoning behind having just the 2 of them play it. While I can see that the initial thought would be very positive towards just them, the synthesizers being so glaringly out front in the final mix really did hurt the song in the long run. The irony is that E&I as the lead single did an amazing job of selling Tug of War upon its release, but even people who initially liked E&I grew to dislike it very quickly after repeated listens. The word "grating" is the best description for the extreme distaste in the sound from many (even objective people about Paul). Further irony about the huge success of E&I in the beginning, is that the song has hurt the overall opinion of the overall album in the long run. I believe that potentially Tug of War would not only be considered as Paul's masterpiece (even over BOTR) but could have gone down as one of the great albums period. As I have said previously, too many (critics, music press, overall music lovers etc.) can't get over the fact that E&I was the big single from the album and they don't or care to look at the overall album. Because of this fact, many of the great tracks from E&I get generally overlooked. As we have also said numerous times on this site, Paul unfortunately has failed to help his own cause regarding Tug of War. Yes, "Here Today" has become a mainstay in his Live Shows (because it is the obvious song to choose for a John tribute number) but he has never played any of the other great Tug tracks live. Tracks that I might add are significantly better than E&I. That is a travesty in my opinion. Look how Maybe I'm Amazed became a signature song for Macca. It happened because he played it in his first World Tour in 1976 and smartly put it out as a single. Then (and again smartly) he continued to sing it on practically every tour since. That's one way a song becomes a signature song. Why he didn't do the same for a couple of the tracks from Tug of War like Wanderlust, Tug of War (the song) , and Take It Away still baffles me. Then again, I never understood why he didn't treat Mull of Kintyre in the same fashion. It still would have given Paul plenty of room for Paul to play many of his signature Beatle songs. Even an artist as prolific as Paul can only have so many signature songs but the ones I've named here (from his Solo side specifically) certainly have the potential. It's like Paul doesn't think as high as he should about his own great Solo songs.
I agree with all of your points. That synth sound on E&I was pretty popular back then, but it sounds really dated now, and that is part of the problem. Part of the problem is Paul waited seven years to tour again, so perhaps to him, in 1989, he really wanted to leave the 80s, which were not kind to him, behind. That included Tug Of War. And yet, on the 1989 tour, he played E&I live, but no other song from the LP!! I saw him in LA at the Forum on that tour, and Stevie Wonder joined him on stage, so we got to hear E&I TWICE that night!!! I really have no answer. He toured three years after BOTR and featured quite a few songs from that LP on the Wings Over America tour. Why not play Take It Away in 1989 and 1993? I have no idea.
"Part of the problem is Paul waited seven years to tour again, so perhaps to him, in 1989, he really wanted to leave the 80s, which were not kind to him, behind. That included Tug Of War. " How was "Tug Of War" unkind to Mr. McCartney ? It was a #1 album/cd, produced a #1 single (Ebony and Ivory) and a top 10 single (Take It Away). It received critical acclaim even from Rolling Stone magazine who many people on this board have said "hates" Mr. McCartney. "Tug Of War"/"Ebony and Ivory" also received Grammy nominations. If this is unkind, I wish Mr. McCartney had more of them - lol.
-
Found it.
Paul & Stevie playing between portraits of George & Martha. -
rich n:
RMartinez:
B J Conlee:
RMartinez:
A lot of folks here are acting like E&I was some sort of anomaly for Paul. It wasn't. It is pure McCartney, exactly what he wanted to write and put out, and it is what he is known for. Songs like that. Yes, he wrote Tug Of War, Junior's Farm, and Girls School, but he also put out Silly Love Songs, With A Little Luck, and Ebony and Ivory. It's what he does. To blame George Martin's production of the song for why people crinkle their nose at it today is just ludicrous.
______________________________________________ RMartinez, You're right regarding your last point. While didn't mean that George Martin was the main problem with E&I, I can see how anyone could interpret as such from my previous reply. In retrospect, I have never seen any quote from Mr. Martin regarding the production on E&I, either positive or negative. The other factor that I should realize is that even if George didn't like the results, it is very hard (even for a producer as prestigious as Mr. Martin) for anyone to tell 2 of the greatest artists on the planet that he didn't like their result. I would be very curious of the reasoning behind having just the 2 of them play it. While I can see that the initial thought would be very positive towards just them, the synthesizers being so glaringly out front in the final mix really did hurt the song in the long run. The irony is that E&I as the lead single did an amazing job of selling Tug of War upon its release, but even people who initially liked E&I grew to dislike it very quickly after repeated listens. The word "grating" is the best description for the extreme distaste in the sound from many (even objective people about Paul). Further irony about the huge success of E&I in the beginning, is that the song has hurt the overall opinion of the overall album in the long run. I believe that potentially Tug of War would not only be considered as Paul's masterpiece (even over BOTR) but could have gone down as one of the great albums period. As I have said previously, too many (critics, music press, overall music lovers etc.) can't get over the fact that E&I was the big single from the album and they don't or care to look at the overall album. Because of this fact, many of the great tracks from E&I get generally overlooked. As we have also said numerous times on this site, Paul unfortunately has failed to help his own cause regarding Tug of War. Yes, "Here Today" has become a mainstay in his Live Shows (because it is the obvious song to choose for a John tribute number) but he has never played any of the other great Tug tracks live. Tracks that I might add are significantly better than E&I. That is a travesty in my opinion. Look how Maybe I'm Amazed became a signature song for Macca. It happened because he played it in his first World Tour in 1976 and smartly put it out as a single. Then (and again smartly) he continued to sing it on practically every tour since. That's one way a song becomes a signature song. Why he didn't do the same for a couple of the tracks from Tug of War like Wanderlust, Tug of War (the song) , and Take It Away still baffles me. Then again, I never understood why he didn't treat Mull of Kintyre in the same fashion. It still would have given Paul plenty of room for Paul to play many of his signature Beatle songs. Even an artist as prolific as Paul can only have so many signature songs but the ones I've named here (from his Solo side specifically) certainly have the potential. It's like Paul doesn't think as high as he should about his own great Solo songs.
I agree with all of your points. That synth sound on E&I was pretty popular back then, but it sounds really dated now, and that is part of the problem. Part of the problem is Paul waited seven years to tour again, so perhaps to him, in 1989, he really wanted to leave the 80s, which were not kind to him, behind. That included Tug Of War. And yet, on the 1989 tour, he played E&I live, but no other song from the LP!! I saw him in LA at the Forum on that tour, and Stevie Wonder joined him on stage, so we got to hear E&I TWICE that night!!! I really have no answer. He toured three years after BOTR and featured quite a few songs from that LP on the Wings Over America tour. Why not play Take It Away in 1989 and 1993? I have no idea.
Keep in mind that he dumped E&I from the set list after the first leg of the 89/90 tour and even made references to reading/hearing negative feedback (even in otherwise glowing reviews of those shows in general)
"Keep in mind that he dumped E&I from the set list after the first leg of the 89/90 tour and even made references to reading/hearing negative feedback (even in otherwise glowing reviews of those shows in general)" How much of that negative feedback was that it was Hamish sharing the vocals instead of legendary Stevie Wonder? Hamish has a wonderful voice but he is not Stevie Wonder. Plus the imagery of "Ebony and Ivory" was helped by having a white and black artist singing the song together. Could it be that it did not go over as well due to a song about racial harmony was being sung by two white men. McCartney never did "Say Say Say" live and it was probably due to he knew you can't replace Michael Jackson. IMO - McCartney should have only done "Ebony and Ivory " live when Wonder could have joined him on stage, in other words a special event. This is why IMO Mr. McCartney should have used "take It Away" instead in his set list back then. _________________
-
-
A live performance of "Say Say Say" could happen on a McCartney concert stage today -- Bruno Mars would be a qualified and incredible person for the job.
-
audi:
A live performance of "Say Say Say" could happen on a McCartney concert stage today -- Bruno Mars would be a qualified and incredible person for the job.
That would be interesting to hear.
-
That would be s**thouse. I'm sickened by the thought. The original was bad enough. It's a big NO THANKS from me.
-
Whoops! Sorry about that. ↑ I anticipated an auto delete. ops:
-
There's nothing *wrong* with the sound of Ebony & Ivory, or the synth, which is actually its great advantage; many songs from that period are loaded with effects and synths and are well-loved today. The problem with E&I is its mawkish, simplistic message of racial harmony. It takes a special talent to reduce social issues like race, and other issues like war, to soundbites in pop songs so that they don't sound patronising or preachy at the same time. Paul doesn't have that talent. George didn't have it either. Lennon had it. Dylan has it, or had it. E&I has a very beautiful melody-line which would have been better served as a love song - Paul had that talent in spades. But, after John's death, I think Paul was determined to enter the market in anthemic songs, hence Tug of War, E&I and Pipes of Peace. His ambition did not survive the disaster that was Broad Street.
-
yankeefan7:
RMartinez:
B J Conlee:
RMartinez:
A lot of folks here are acting like E&I was some sort of anomaly for Paul. It wasn't. It is pure McCartney, exactly what he wanted to write and put out, and it is what he is known for. Songs like that. Yes, he wrote Tug Of War, Junior's Farm, and Girls School, but he also put out Silly Love Songs, With A Little Luck, and Ebony and Ivory. It's what he does. To blame George Martin's production of the song for why people crinkle their nose at it today is just ludicrous.
______________________________________________ RMartinez, You're right regarding your last point. While didn't mean that George Martin was the main problem with E&I, I can see how anyone could interpret as such from my previous reply. In retrospect, I have never seen any quote from Mr. Martin regarding the production on E&I, either positive or negative. The other factor that I should realize is that even if George didn't like the results, it is very hard (even for a producer as prestigious as Mr. Martin) for anyone to tell 2 of the greatest artists on the planet that he didn't like their result. I would be very curious of the reasoning behind having just the 2 of them play it. While I can see that the initial thought would be very positive towards just them, the synthesizers being so glaringly out front in the final mix really did hurt the song in the long run. The irony is that E&I as the lead single did an amazing job of selling Tug of War upon its release, but even people who initially liked E&I grew to dislike it very quickly after repeated listens. The word "grating" is the best description for the extreme distaste in the sound from many (even objective people about Paul). Further irony about the huge success of E&I in the beginning, is that the song has hurt the overall opinion of the overall album in the long run. I believe that potentially Tug of War would not only be considered as Paul's masterpiece (even over BOTR) but could have gone down as one of the great albums period. As I have said previously, too many (critics, music press, overall music lovers etc.) can't get over the fact that E&I was the big single from the album and they don't or care to look at the overall album. Because of this fact, many of the great tracks from E&I get generally overlooked. As we have also said numerous times on this site, Paul unfortunately has failed to help his own cause regarding Tug of War. Yes, "Here Today" has become a mainstay in his Live Shows (because it is the obvious song to choose for a John tribute number) but he has never played any of the other great Tug tracks live. Tracks that I might add are significantly better than E&I. That is a travesty in my opinion. Look how Maybe I'm Amazed became a signature song for Macca. It happened because he played it in his first World Tour in 1976 and smartly put it out as a single. Then (and again smartly) he continued to sing it on practically every tour since. That's one way a song becomes a signature song. Why he didn't do the same for a couple of the tracks from Tug of War like Wanderlust, Tug of War (the song) , and Take It Away still baffles me. Then again, I never understood why he didn't treat Mull of Kintyre in the same fashion. It still would have given Paul plenty of room for Paul to play many of his signature Beatle songs. Even an artist as prolific as Paul can only have so many signature songs but the ones I've named here (from his Solo side specifically) certainly have the potential. It's like Paul doesn't think as high as he should about his own great Solo songs.
I agree with all of your points. That synth sound on E&I was pretty popular back then, but it sounds really dated now, and that is part of the problem. Part of the problem is Paul waited seven years to tour again, so perhaps to him, in 1989, he really wanted to leave the 80s, which were not kind to him, behind. That included Tug Of War. And yet, on the 1989 tour, he played E&I live, but no other song from the LP!! I saw him in LA at the Forum on that tour, and Stevie Wonder joined him on stage, so we got to hear E&I TWICE that night!!! I really have no answer. He toured three years after BOTR and featured quite a few songs from that LP on the Wings Over America tour. Why not play Take It Away in 1989 and 1993? I have no idea.
"Part of the problem is Paul waited seven years to tour again, so perhaps to him, in 1989, he really wanted to leave the 80s, which were not kind to him, behind. That included Tug Of War. " How was "Tug Of War" unkind to Mr. McCartney ? It was a #1 album/cd, produced a #1 single (Ebony and Ivory) and a top 10 single (Take It Away). It received critical acclaim even from Rolling Stone magazine who many people on this board have said "hates" Mr. McCartney. "Tug Of War"/"Ebony and Ivory" also received Grammy nominations. If this is unkind, I wish Mr. McCartney had more of them - lol.
All I meant was he threw the baby out with the bath water, meaning he really seemed to leave the 80s behind, including Tug Of War and other great songs.
-
yankeefan7:
rich n:
RMartinez:
B J Conlee:
RMartinez:
A lot of folks here are acting like E&I was some sort of anomaly for Paul. It wasn't. It is pure McCartney, exactly what he wanted to write and put out, and it is what he is known for. Songs like that. Yes, he wrote Tug Of War, Junior's Farm, and Girls School, but he also put out Silly Love Songs, With A Little Luck, and Ebony and Ivory. It's what he does. To blame George Martin's production of the song for why people crinkle their nose at it today is just ludicrous.
______________________________________________ RMartinez, You're right regarding your last point. While didn't mean that George Martin was the main problem with E&I, I can see how anyone could interpret as such from my previous reply. In retrospect, I have never seen any quote from Mr. Martin regarding the production on E&I, either positive or negative. The other factor that I should realize is that even if George didn't like the results, it is very hard (even for a producer as prestigious as Mr. Martin) for anyone to tell 2 of the greatest artists on the planet that he didn't like their result. I would be very curious of the reasoning behind having just the 2 of them play it. While I can see that the initial thought would be very positive towards just them, the synthesizers being so glaringly out front in the final mix really did hurt the song in the long run. The irony is that E&I as the lead single did an amazing job of selling Tug of War upon its release, but even people who initially liked E&I grew to dislike it very quickly after repeated listens. The word "grating" is the best description for the extreme distaste in the sound from many (even objective people about Paul). Further irony about the huge success of E&I in the beginning, is that the song has hurt the overall opinion of the overall album in the long run. I believe that potentially Tug of War would not only be considered as Paul's masterpiece (even over BOTR) but could have gone down as one of the great albums period. As I have said previously, too many (critics, music press, overall music lovers etc.) can't get over the fact that E&I was the big single from the album and they don't or care to look at the overall album. Because of this fact, many of the great tracks from E&I get generally overlooked. As we have also said numerous times on this site, Paul unfortunately has failed to help his own cause regarding Tug of War. Yes, "Here Today" has become a mainstay in his Live Shows (because it is the obvious song to choose for a John tribute number) but he has never played any of the other great Tug tracks live. Tracks that I might add are significantly better than E&I. That is a travesty in my opinion. Look how Maybe I'm Amazed became a signature song for Macca. It happened because he played it in his first World Tour in 1976 and smartly put it out as a single. Then (and again smartly) he continued to sing it on practically every tour since. That's one way a song becomes a signature song. Why he didn't do the same for a couple of the tracks from Tug of War like Wanderlust, Tug of War (the song) , and Take It Away still baffles me. Then again, I never understood why he didn't treat Mull of Kintyre in the same fashion. It still would have given Paul plenty of room for Paul to play many of his signature Beatle songs. Even an artist as prolific as Paul can only have so many signature songs but the ones I've named here (from his Solo side specifically) certainly have the potential. It's like Paul doesn't think as high as he should about his own great Solo songs.
I agree with all of your points. That synth sound on E&I was pretty popular back then, but it sounds really dated now, and that is part of the problem. Part of the problem is Paul waited seven years to tour again, so perhaps to him, in 1989, he really wanted to leave the 80s, which were not kind to him, behind. That included Tug Of War. And yet, on the 1989 tour, he played E&I live, but no other song from the LP!! I saw him in LA at the Forum on that tour, and Stevie Wonder joined him on stage, so we got to hear E&I TWICE that night!!! I really have no answer. He toured three years after BOTR and featured quite a few songs from that LP on the Wings Over America tour. Why not play Take It Away in 1989 and 1993? I have no idea.
Keep in mind that he dumped E&I from the set list after the first leg of the 89/90 tour and even made references to reading/hearing negative feedback (even in otherwise glowing reviews of those shows in general)
"Keep in mind that he dumped E&I from the set list after the first leg of the 89/90 tour and even made references to reading/hearing negative feedback (even in otherwise glowing reviews of those shows in general)" How much of that negative feedback was that it was Hamish sharing the vocals instead of legendary Stevie Wonder? Hamish has a wonderful voice but he is not Stevie Wonder. Plus the imagery of "Ebony and Ivory" was helped by having a white and black artist singing the song together. Could it be that it did not go over as well due to a song about racial harmony was being sung by two white men. McCartney never did "Say Say Say" live and it was probably due to he knew you can't replace Michael Jackson. IMO - McCartney should have only done "Ebony and Ivory " live when Wonder could have joined him on stage, in other words a special event. This is why IMO Mr. McCartney should have used "take It Away" instead in his set list back then. _________________
I was at those shows at the Forum in LA. NO ONE said, "Wait a minute! A Black guy should sing those parts, that is why this song is not going over well!" No, Hamish did a fine job on the song. It is just a bit light weight. Which is why Paul also does not do Silly Love Songs or With A Little Luck live. He does not want that to be his legacy, though it is a bit too late. Paul wrote E&I and released it. If he did not want to be known for that, he should not have released it. Paul's judgment of such things is a bit suspect. The Beatles kept him in line, for example, when he wanted Maxwell's Silver Hammer to be a single and that was stopped, as it should have been. Other artists seem to have a bit more self control about such things. You don't see Jimmy Page or Keith Richards going through such a thing.
-
RMartinez:
yankeefan7:
rich n:
RMartinez:
B J Conlee:
RMartinez:
A lot of folks here are acting like E&I was some sort of anomaly for Paul. It wasn't. It is pure McCartney, exactly what he wanted to write and put out, and it is what he is known for. Songs like that. Yes, he wrote Tug Of War, Junior's Farm, and Girls School, but he also put out Silly Love Songs, With A Little Luck, and Ebony and Ivory. It's what he does. To blame George Martin's production of the song for why people crinkle their nose at it today is just ludicrous.
______________________________________________ RMartinez, You're right regarding your last point. While didn't mean that George Martin was the main problem with E&I, I can see how anyone could interpret as such from my previous reply. In retrospect, I have never seen any quote from Mr. Martin regarding the production on E&I, either positive or negative. The other factor that I should realize is that even if George didn't like the results, it is very hard (even for a producer as prestigious as Mr. Martin) for anyone to tell 2 of the greatest artists on the planet that he didn't like their result. I would be very curious of the reasoning behind having just the 2 of them play it. While I can see that the initial thought would be very positive towards just them, the synthesizers being so glaringly out front in the final mix really did hurt the song in the long run. The irony is that E&I as the lead single did an amazing job of selling Tug of War upon its release, but even people who initially liked E&I grew to dislike it very quickly after repeated listens. The word "grating" is the best description for the extreme distaste in the sound from many (even objective people about Paul). Further irony about the huge success of E&I in the beginning, is that the song has hurt the overall opinion of the overall album in the long run. I believe that potentially Tug of War would not only be considered as Paul's masterpiece (even over BOTR) but could have gone down as one of the great albums period. As I have said previously, too many (critics, music press, overall music lovers etc.) can't get over the fact that E&I was the big single from the album and they don't or care to look at the overall album. Because of this fact, many of the great tracks from E&I get generally overlooked. As we have also said numerous times on this site, Paul unfortunately has failed to help his own cause regarding Tug of War. Yes, "Here Today" has become a mainstay in his Live Shows (because it is the obvious song to choose for a John tribute number) but he has never played any of the other great Tug tracks live. Tracks that I might add are significantly better than E&I. That is a travesty in my opinion. Look how Maybe I'm Amazed became a signature song for Macca. It happened because he played it in his first World Tour in 1976 and smartly put it out as a single. Then (and again smartly) he continued to sing it on practically every tour since. That's one way a song becomes a signature song. Why he didn't do the same for a couple of the tracks from Tug of War like Wanderlust, Tug of War (the song) , and Take It Away still baffles me. Then again, I never understood why he didn't treat Mull of Kintyre in the same fashion. It still would have given Paul plenty of room for Paul to play many of his signature Beatle songs. Even an artist as prolific as Paul can only have so many signature songs but the ones I've named here (from his Solo side specifically) certainly have the potential. It's like Paul doesn't think as high as he should about his own great Solo songs.
I agree with all of your points. That synth sound on E&I was pretty popular back then, but it sounds really dated now, and that is part of the problem. Part of the problem is Paul waited seven years to tour again, so perhaps to him, in 1989, he really wanted to leave the 80s, which were not kind to him, behind. That included Tug Of War. And yet, on the 1989 tour, he played E&I live, but no other song from the LP!! I saw him in LA at the Forum on that tour, and Stevie Wonder joined him on stage, so we got to hear E&I TWICE that night!!! I really have no answer. He toured three years after BOTR and featured quite a few songs from that LP on the Wings Over America tour. Why not play Take It Away in 1989 and 1993? I have no idea.
Keep in mind that he dumped E&I from the set list after the first leg of the 89/90 tour and even made references to reading/hearing negative feedback (even in otherwise glowing reviews of those shows in general)
"Keep in mind that he dumped E&I from the set list after the first leg of the 89/90 tour and even made references to reading/hearing negative feedback (even in otherwise glowing reviews of those shows in general)" How much of that negative feedback was that it was Hamish sharing the vocals instead of legendary Stevie Wonder? Hamish has a wonderful voice but he is not Stevie Wonder. Plus the imagery of "Ebony and Ivory" was helped by having a white and black artist singing the song together. Could it be that it did not go over as well due to a song about racial harmony was being sung by two white men. McCartney never did "Say Say Say" live and it was probably due to he knew you can't replace Michael Jackson. IMO - McCartney should have only done "Ebony and Ivory " live when Wonder could have joined him on stage, in other words a special event. This is why IMO Mr. McCartney should have used "take It Away" instead in his set list back then. _________________
I was at those shows at the Forum in LA. NO ONE said, "Wait a minute! A Black guy should sing those parts, that is why this song is not going over well!" No, Hamish did a fine job on the song. It is just a bit light weight. Which is why Paul also does not do Silly Love Songs or With A Little Luck live. He does not want that to be his legacy, though it is a bit too late. Paul wrote E&I and released it. If he did not want to be known for that, he should not have released it. Paul's judgment of such things is a bit suspect. The Beatles kept him in line, for example, when he wanted Maxwell's Silver Hammer to be a single and that was stopped, as it should have been. Other artists seem to have a bit more self control about such things. You don't see Jimmy Page or Keith Richards going through such a thing.
" I was at those shows at the Forum in LA. NO ONE said, "Wait a minute! A Black guy should sing those parts, that is why this song is not going over well!" No, Hamish did a fine job on the song. It is just a bit light weight. Which is why Paul also does not do Silly Love Songs or With A Little Luck live. He does not want that to be his legacy, though it is a bit too late. " Those songs are some of the biggest commercial hits Mr. McCartney has every had so why ignore them in concert. Mr. McCartney had no problem doing a song like "C Moon" which IMO is pretty lightweight. I said Hamish did a fine job on the song but once again he is not Stevie Wonder. This song was a duet with two super stars and these kind of songs don't come off as well when one of those is missing.
-
RMartinez:
yankeefan7:
rich n:
RMartinez:
B J Conlee:
RMartinez:
A lot of folks here are acting like E&I was some sort of anomaly for Paul. It wasn't. It is pure McCartney, exactly what he wanted to write and put out, and it is what he is known for. Songs like that. Yes, he wrote Tug Of War, Junior's Farm, and Girls School, but he also put out Silly Love Songs, With A Little Luck, and Ebony and Ivory. It's what he does. To blame George Martin's production of the song for why people crinkle their nose at it today is just ludicrous.
______________________________________________ RMartinez, You're right regarding your last point. While didn't mean that George Martin was the main problem with E&I, I can see how anyone could interpret as such from my previous reply. In retrospect, I have never seen any quote from Mr. Martin regarding the production on E&I, either positive or negative. The other factor that I should realize is that even if George didn't like the results, it is very hard (even for a producer as prestigious as Mr. Martin) for anyone to tell 2 of the greatest artists on the planet that he didn't like their result. I would be very curious of the reasoning behind having just the 2 of them play it. While I can see that the initial thought would be very positive towards just them, the synthesizers being so glaringly out front in the final mix really did hurt the song in the long run. The irony is that E&I as the lead single did an amazing job of selling Tug of War upon its release, but even people who initially liked E&I grew to dislike it very quickly after repeated listens. The word "grating" is the best description for the extreme distaste in the sound from many (even objective people about Paul). Further irony about the huge success of E&I in the beginning, is that the song has hurt the overall opinion of the overall album in the long run. I believe that potentially Tug of War would not only be considered as Paul's masterpiece (even over BOTR) but could have gone down as one of the great albums period. As I have said previously, too many (critics, music press, overall music lovers etc.) can't get over the fact that E&I was the big single from the album and they don't or care to look at the overall album. Because of this fact, many of the great tracks from E&I get generally overlooked. As we have also said numerous times on this site, Paul unfortunately has failed to help his own cause regarding Tug of War. Yes, "Here Today" has become a mainstay in his Live Shows (because it is the obvious song to choose for a John tribute number) but he has never played any of the other great Tug tracks live. Tracks that I might add are significantly better than E&I. That is a travesty in my opinion. Look how Maybe I'm Amazed became a signature song for Macca. It happened because he played it in his first World Tour in 1976 and smartly put it out as a single. Then (and again smartly) he continued to sing it on practically every tour since. That's one way a song becomes a signature song. Why he didn't do the same for a couple of the tracks from Tug of War like Wanderlust, Tug of War (the song) , and Take It Away still baffles me. Then again, I never understood why he didn't treat Mull of Kintyre in the same fashion. It still would have given Paul plenty of room for Paul to play many of his signature Beatle songs. Even an artist as prolific as Paul can only have so many signature songs but the ones I've named here (from his Solo side specifically) certainly have the potential. It's like Paul doesn't think as high as he should about his own great Solo songs.
I agree with all of your points. That synth sound on E&I was pretty popular back then, but it sounds really dated now, and that is part of the problem. Part of the problem is Paul waited seven years to tour again, so perhaps to him, in 1989, he really wanted to leave the 80s, which were not kind to him, behind. That included Tug Of War. And yet, on the 1989 tour, he played E&I live, but no other song from the LP!! I saw him in LA at the Forum on that tour, and Stevie Wonder joined him on stage, so we got to hear E&I TWICE that night!!! I really have no answer. He toured three years after BOTR and featured quite a few songs from that LP on the Wings Over America tour. Why not play Take It Away in 1989 and 1993? I have no idea.
Keep in mind that he dumped E&I from the set list after the first leg of the 89/90 tour and even made references to reading/hearing negative feedback (even in otherwise glowing reviews of those shows in general)
"Keep in mind that he dumped E&I from the set list after the first leg of the 89/90 tour and even made references to reading/hearing negative feedback (even in otherwise glowing reviews of those shows in general)" How much of that negative feedback was that it was Hamish sharing the vocals instead of legendary Stevie Wonder? Hamish has a wonderful voice but he is not Stevie Wonder. Plus the imagery of "Ebony and Ivory" was helped by having a white and black artist singing the song together. Could it be that it did not go over as well due to a song about racial harmony was being sung by two white men. McCartney never did "Say Say Say" live and it was probably due to he knew you can't replace Michael Jackson. IMO - McCartney should have only done "Ebony and Ivory " live when Wonder could have joined him on stage, in other words a special event. This is why IMO Mr. McCartney should have used "take It Away" instead in his set list back then. _________________
I was at those shows at the Forum in LA. NO ONE said, "Wait a minute! A Black guy should sing those parts, that is why this song is not going over well!" No, Hamish did a fine job on the song. It is just a bit light weight. Which is why Paul also does not do Silly Love Songs or With A Little Luck live. He does not want that to be his legacy, though it is a bit too late. Paul wrote E&I and released it. If he did not want to be known for that, he should not have released it. Paul's judgment of such things is a bit suspect. The Beatles kept him in line, for example, when he wanted Maxwell's Silver Hammer to be a single and that was stopped, as it should have been. Other artists seem to have a bit more self control about such things. You don't see Jimmy Page or Keith Richards going through such a thing.
I like Page and Richards but both are quite limited as to the type of music that they can do well. (and they do it very well, I might add). But neither musician has the range of ability or songwriting talent to pull off a "Honey Pie" the way McCartney can. McCartney has never been pigeon-holed into one specific musical style or genre. He can just as easily deliver what some might call "lightweight" pop songs as he can rockers like Juniors Farm and Soily. That diversity has continued to astound me over the years.
-
Squid:
There's nothing *wrong* with the sound of Ebony & Ivory, or the synth, which is actually its great advantage; many songs from that period are loaded with effects and synths and are well-loved today. The problem with E&I is its mawkish, simplistic message of racial harmony. It takes a special talent to reduce social issues like race, and other issues like war, to soundbites in pop songs so that they don't sound patronising or preachy at the same time. Paul doesn't have that talent. George didn't have it either. Lennon had it. Dylan has it, or had it. E&I has a very beautiful melody-line which would have been better served as a love song - Paul had that talent in spades. But, after John's death, I think Paul was determined to enter the market in anthemic songs, hence Tug of War, E&I and Pipes of Peace. His ambition did not survive the disaster that was Broad Street.
I generally agree, but I also think the production can either make up for poor lyrics or exacerbate them (like E&I). For example, I love 'Give Ireland Back to the Irish', even though the lyrics might be a bit too literal or simplistic. However, it's a "pub" song & love how Paul screams out the chorus. Its a cool song to listen to today. Similarly, I love George's 'Give me peace on earth' mainly because of the awesome acoustic & slide guitar, even though the lyrics are a bit preachy & sentimental. I think that's why a lot of John's political songs in the late 60's through '71 works is because the music rocks or is sparce, even though the lyrics are over the top. But, nothing can save his 'Sometime in NYC album' because besides the over the top lyrics, he decided to bring in horns & the Elephants band. 'Woman is the n* of the world' is a good example. Besides offending 2 demographics, he also uses horns and a sax!! Nobody should be forced to listen to that song ever again.