Video Game Music: "Destiny"
-
Kestrel:
Bruce M.:
Kestrel:
Bruce M.:
toris:
Oh, I hope he keeps trying to hit the charts. In fact, we all know it's not in his makeup to stop trying. All part of the ego required all these years to make him the most prolific songwriter of all time.
What's your basis for saying Paul is the most prolific songwriter of all time? I doubt that he's written more than Irving Berlin, who wrote some 1,500 songs before dying at age 101.
If we assume that Paul has written,on average,one song a week for the last 54 years,then according to my calculation, he's written 2808 songs.
But of course we have no basis whatsoever for such an assumption. Personally, I'd guess that's wildly improbable.
If I could ask Paul three questions, they would be: 1) How many songs on average do you write in a year? 2) How many of those songs on average would be recorded? 3) How many of those recordings on average would get released.
Unfortunately, Paul would never be able to know the answers to those questions. Better to ask Stuart Bell to research it!
-
TrevorWD:
love the post about Rock Band
Anyway I think this is awesome news. I hope he does more compositions for computer games; as I am a computer game enthusiast. There's been some really good theme songs written for games in the past. And I tell you, I have let my favourite songs from games dating back to the 1980s play though in its entirety even before playing the game/stage. I would probably buy any affordable PC Game if I knew that Macca was the musical genius behind the game. Cheers, Trev.
What was the post about Rock Band? Please quote posts in the future. Thanks!
-
favoritething:
moptops:
He should be advised less is more impactful. For the love of God...he's been saturating the circuit and what for? Zero. The song stiffed...as it should have. It's crap. And if any hardcores remove their blinkers, they would agree.
There are songs of his that I dislike, but this isn't one of them. I still think it's fine. But at this point, I have to think that his charting days are behind him. Maybe his only chance would be some new tribute song to John, or something along those lines. Not that I want him to do that, but I can't see any other way he can get near a singles chart otherwise.... unless: Kanye?
(But even Kanye doesn't do that well with singles anymore.)
Well, now we see how that turned out.
-
Sgt._Pepper:
love2travel:
oobu24:
Just had a chance to listen, did Paul write these? It's so cool he's always doing projects like this... I can see him playing these games with his grandkids... Nice that they will get to hear his music that way too. He's always so current
Cool Grandad!
In reply to Nancy R; this is what I was referring to.
-
Bruce M.:
toris:
Oh, I hope he keeps trying to hit the charts. In fact, we all know it's not in his makeup to stop trying. All part of the ego required all these years to make him the most prolific songwriter of all time.
What's your basis for saying Paul is the most prolific songwriter of all time? I doubt that he's written more than Irving Berlin, who wrote some 1,500 songs before dying at age 101. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Berlin
Bruce is right. In my opinion, to define a songwriter as "prolific" we have to consider his output. I mean, the official released songs. What's the point of writing tons of songs if these remain unreleased? In some cases, something could happen (e.g. a song intended for a soundtrack thta got nixed or something9 but if the song is good, there's no reason for it to remain unissued. Anyway, just to make a rough count...During the Beatles' years, out of 211 songs 44 were not co-written by Paul. It makes 167. During his solo career he has released (as a composer or co-writer) nearly 390 songs (I included 383 songs in my book "PAUL McCARTNEY: RECORDING SESSIONS", up to 2013). We have also unreleased songs: from all available sources (list of titles, songs appeared on bootlegs) we have more or less 120-130 songs. surely there's more, but it's hard to say is there are finished songs or ideas, sketches. Let's double this number and we can guess we have 250. Classical compositions: it's hard to count them, because they are not songs, but ideas and more complex form. But we can say we have around other 50-60 tracks. Songs for others: I did not count them, but I can say we have another 80-100 tracks. Roughly it makesa total of 1.000. Wecan add a 20-30% and reach around 1.200/1.300 But what's more important is the quality of the songs. And McCartney is certainly the most successful composer of all times.
-
TrevorWD:
Sgt._Pepper:
love2travel:
oobu24:
Just had a chance to listen, did Paul write these? It's so cool he's always doing projects like this... I can see him playing these games with his grandkids... Nice that they will get to hear his music that way too. He's always so current
Cool Grandad!
In reply to Nancy R; this is what I was referring to.
Ah yes! Thank you! (so funny!)
-
Luca:
Bruce M.:
toris:
Oh, I hope he keeps trying to hit the charts. In fact, we all know it's not in his makeup to stop trying. All part of the ego required all these years to make him the most prolific songwriter of all time.
What's your basis for saying Paul is the most prolific songwriter of all time? I doubt that he's written more than Irving Berlin, who wrote some 1,500 songs before dying at age 101. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Berlin
Bruce is right. In my opinion, to define a songwriter as "prolific" we have to consider his output. I mean, the official released songs. What's the point of writing tons of songs if these remain unreleased? In some cases, something could happen (e.g. a song intended for a soundtrack thta got nixed or something9 but if the song is good, there's no reason for it to remain unissued. Anyway, just to make a rough count...During the Beatles' years, out of 211 songs 44 were not co-written by Paul. It makes 167. During his solo career he has released (as a composer or co-writer) nearly 390 songs (I included 383 songs in my book "PAUL McCARTNEY: RECORDING SESSIONS", up to 2013). We have also unreleased songs: from all available sources (list of titles, songs appeared on bootlegs) we have more or less 120-130 songs. surely there's more, but it's hard to say is there are finished songs or ideas, sketches. Let's double this number and we can guess we have 250. Classical compositions: it's hard to count them, because they are not songs, but ideas and more complex form. But we can say we have around other 50-60 tracks. Songs for others: I did not count them, but I can say we have another 80-100 tracks. Roughly it makesa total of 1.000. Wecan add a 20-30% and reach around 1.200/1.300 But what's more important is the quality of the songs. And McCartney is certainly the most successful composer of all times.
-
Luca:
Bruce M.:
toris:
Oh, I hope he keeps trying to hit the charts. In fact, we all know it's not in his makeup to stop trying. All part of the ego required all these years to make him the most prolific songwriter of all time.
What's your basis for saying Paul is the most prolific songwriter of all time? I doubt that he's written more than Irving Berlin, who wrote some 1,500 songs before dying at age 101. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Berlin
Bruce is right. In my opinion, to define a songwriter as "prolific" we have to consider his output. I mean, the official released songs. What's the point of writing tons of songs if these remain unreleased? In some cases, something could happen (e.g. a song intended for a soundtrack thta got nixed or something9 but if the song is good, there's no reason for it to remain unissued. Anyway, just to make a rough count...During the Beatles' years, out of 211 songs 44 were not co-written by Paul. It makes 167. During his solo career he has released (as a composer or co-writer) nearly 390 songs (I included 383 songs in my book "PAUL McCARTNEY: RECORDING SESSIONS", up to 2013). We have also unreleased songs: from all available sources (list of titles, songs appeared on bootlegs) we have more or less 120-130 songs. surely there's more, but it's hard to say is there are finished songs or ideas, sketches. Let's double this number and we can guess we have 250. Classical compositions: it's hard to count them, because they are not songs, but ideas and more complex form. But we can say we have around other 50-60 tracks. Songs for others: I did not count them, but I can say we have another 80-100 tracks. Roughly it makesa total of 1.000. Wecan add a 20-30% and reach around 1.200/1.300 But what's more important is the quality of the songs. And McCartney is certainly the most successful composer of all times.
Got your book for Christmas, by the way, Luca. Still reading a different book, but I'm impressed with the info you have for each track, including some great quotes.
-
One note on "Hope For The Future": it did hit the Hot Rock Songs chart for one week at the end of the year, hitting #44. That's the only chart action I know of for it.
-
Hope for the future appeared in another billboard chart the"hot singles sales" chart at number 3 in the chart for 27 december ,how the people here missed the good news i take a copy of the chart!
-
"Hope For The Future" is 10 times the song as compared to "Only One" - what a shame HFTF is getting no attention or meaningful chart action. Could we perhaps do a quick redo/reissue of "Hope For The Future" that says "featuring Kanye West"???
-
I can't say either song caught my attention personally though I don't hate either one either.
-
My Salamander:
"Hope For The Future" is 10 times the song as compared to "Only One" - what a shame HFTF is getting no attention or meaningful chart action. Could we perhaps do a quick redo/reissue of "Hope For The Future" that says "featuring Kanye West"???
Totally disagree. At least Only One is about something and conveys some real feeling. Hope for the Future is as generic as a Hallmark greeting card and a pretty weak addition to Paul's discography.
-
Bruce M.:
My Salamander:
"Hope For The Future" is 10 times the song as compared to "Only One" - what a shame HFTF is getting no attention or meaningful chart action. Could we perhaps do a quick redo/reissue of "Hope For The Future" that says "featuring Kanye West"???
Totally disagree. At least Only One is about something and conveys some real feeling. Hope for the Future is as generic as a Hallmark greeting card and a pretty weak addition to Paul's discography.
Agreed. There seems to be no one in McCartney's camp honest enough to tell him when something he's written is bad.
-
audi:
Bruce M.:
My Salamander:
"Hope For The Future" is 10 times the song as compared to "Only One" - what a shame HFTF is getting no attention or meaningful chart action. Could we perhaps do a quick redo/reissue of "Hope For The Future" that says "featuring Kanye West"???
Totally disagree. At least Only One is about something and conveys some real feeling. Hope for the Future is as generic as a Hallmark greeting card and a pretty weak addition to Paul's discography.
Agreed. There seems to be no one in McCartney's camp honest enough to tell him when something he's written is bad.
I'm happy to take the job!... I'll even thrown in album "single releases" as a freebie. No extra charge.
-
carlos guerreiro:
Hope for the future appeared in another billboard chart the"hot singles sales" chart at number 3 in the chart for 27 december ,how the people here missed the good news i take a copy of the chart!
I can't see that chart online. Maybe you have to be a subscriber to see that one? I glanced at Japan's chart, thinking maybe the song would be popular there, but there's no sign of it. "Wonderful Christmastime" is there, however, as well as a new song (by a Japanese artist) called "Anyone Love Me Do"!
-
favoritething:
Luca:
Bruce M.:
toris:
Oh, I hope he keeps trying to hit the charts. In fact, we all know it's not in his makeup to stop trying. All part of the ego required all these years to make him the most prolific songwriter of all time.
What's your basis for saying Paul is the most prolific songwriter of all time? I doubt that he's written more than Irving Berlin, who wrote some 1,500 songs before dying at age 101. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Berlin
Bruce is right. In my opinion, to define a songwriter as "prolific" we have to consider his output. I mean, the official released songs. What's the point of writing tons of songs if these remain unreleased? In some cases, something could happen (e.g. a song intended for a soundtrack thta got nixed or something9 but if the song is good, there's no reason for it to remain unissued. Anyway, just to make a rough count...During the Beatles' years, out of 211 songs 44 were not co-written by Paul. It makes 167. During his solo career he has released (as a composer or co-writer) nearly 390 songs (I included 383 songs in my book "PAUL McCARTNEY: RECORDING SESSIONS", up to 2013). We have also unreleased songs: from all available sources (list of titles, songs appeared on bootlegs) we have more or less 120-130 songs. surely there's more, but it's hard to say is there are finished songs or ideas, sketches. Let's double this number and we can guess we have 250. Classical compositions: it's hard to count them, because they are not songs, but ideas and more complex form. But we can say we have around other 50-60 tracks. Songs for others: I did not count them, but I can say we have another 80-100 tracks. Roughly it makesa total of 1.000. Wecan add a 20-30% and reach around 1.200/1.300 But what's more important is the quality of the songs. And McCartney is certainly the most successful composer of all times.
Got your book for Christmas, by the way, Luca. Still reading a different book, but I'm impressed with the info you have for each track, including some great quotes.
Thanks so much, it was a lot of hard work, but a lot of fun too! I'm happy you like it, I think that Paul finally deserved a book telling the stories behind his songs as a solo artist. Certainly he has his up and down, but it's still a remarkable career.
-
Here's one source that claims to have crunched the numbers from Billboard's charts and concluded that Paul McCartney is the most successful songwriter from 1890 through 2008. Their methodology is not 100% clear from this article, and I didn't follow the links to get all the details. http://www.thejanuarist.com/most-successful-songwriters-1890-2008-and-60s-70s-80s-90s-2000s/ Successful, of course, is quite different than prolific, which is where this discussion began.
-
Bruce M.:
Here's one source that claims to have crunched the numbers from Billboard's charts and concluded that Paul McCartney is the most successful songwriter from 1890 through 2008. Their methodology is not 100% clear from this article, and I didn't follow the links to get all the details. http://www.thejanuarist.com/most-successful-songwriters-1890-2008-and-60s-70s-80s-90s-2000s/ Successful, of course, is quite different than prolific, which is where this discussion began.
Yes, confusing methodology. They don't seem to have been able to combine different spellings of the same person's name, except perhaps Prince? Still, it's clear that Paul is the dominant force overall.