Video Game Music: "Destiny"
-
RMartinez:
Bruce M.:
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.
I wouldn't call it crap, it's just so-so, Paul on autopilot. And it's not getting any meaningful radio play. While it's unlikely Paul will have another hit single ever (sigh...), you can bank on the fact that "Hope" won't be one.
Yup. I wonder if he should even try or care to make the charts anymore. I know he has a competitive spirit, but it really is not his market anymore. He has nothing to prove. He had many major hits as a Beatle and as a Wing and as Paul McCartney.
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. I do hope, however, that he just makes better decisions with his releases, and never surrenders to something that isn't him. Lots of artists reinvent themselves, like Tom Jones for example. But they become novelty artists. That will never happen with Paul. And I don't want him to stoop to becoming one part of a duo that is marketed at the young kids. One half of Bieber, Cyrus or Kim Kardashian's husband or whoever. (So that Mr. Kardashian collaboration will be interesting, as to how that is handled. If it is released, it better be 80% Paul and a smidgeon of Mr. K as a light little piece of fluff in the background) This song in question - Hope for the Future - remains ordinary to my ears..... Fact is he will hit number one again. And all his records will top the charts again too... Just as Imagine finally hit number one for John....Before that, however, I do hope Paul is better advised (as in someone doesn't just giggle and tell him how great is is) and puts out something totally brilliant.
-
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
-
But how many number 1 hits did Irving Berlin have? We tried to figure it out on here a couple years ago and figured Paul had written, or co-written, about 800 or so songs. Anybody have an exact figure?
-
Nancy R:
But how many number 1 hits did Irving Berlin have? We tried to figure it out on here a couple years ago and figured Paul had written, or co-written, about 800 or so songs. Anybody have an exact figure?
I think the point is, will Paul ever have another no. 1 hit? My answer is no. It is not a criticism. But hit records are a young person's game. And a game for a person at the top of their game.
-
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
That's an exceptional counterpoint, Bruce.... Hard to argue against. Now, with the exception of "Attack of the Killer Phantoms" (yep, I am being flippant - although...) I'm not a real big fan of musicals, but I've gotta admit there are some timeless tunes in that mix. Many of them I knew well. Even if I don't like them all, and many are covered in cheese, there is no doubt they are classics. In fact, I was surprised by the quality and amount of classics. And the quality of those he wrote for. I will, however, stick that McCartney will go down as the better composer/songwriter when this question is posed in 500 years time. Of course a lot of it will come down to the literal or extending interpretation of the term 'prolific'. But, your point was well made. And has made me more appreciative of Irving Berlin.
-
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.
-
toris:
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
That's an exceptional counterpoint, Bruce.... Hard to argue against. Now, with the exception of "Attack of the Killer Phantoms" (yep, I am being flippant - although...) I'm not a real big fan of musicals, but I've gotta admit there are some timeless tunes in that mix. Many of them I knew well. Even if I don't like them all, and many are covered in cheese, there is no doubt they are classics. In fact, I was surprised by the quality and amount of classics. And the quality of those he wrote for. I will, however, stick that McCartney will go down as the better composer/songwriter when this question is posed in 500 years time. Of course a lot of it will come down to the literal or extending interpretation of the term 'prolific'. But, your point was well made. And has made me more appreciative of Irving Berlin.
Time will tell who will be considered "better." What will the criteria be? For "better?"
-
RMartinez:
toris:
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
That's an exceptional counterpoint, Bruce.... Hard to argue against. Now, with the exception of "Attack of the Killer Phantoms" (yep, I am being flippant - although...) I'm not a real big fan of musicals, but I've gotta admit there are some timeless tunes in that mix. Many of them I knew well. Even if I don't like them all, and many are covered in cheese, there is no doubt they are classics. In fact, I was surprised by the quality and amount of classics. And the quality of those he wrote for. I will, however, stick that McCartney will go down as the better composer/songwriter when this question is posed in 500 years time. Of course a lot of it will come down to the literal or extending interpretation of the term 'prolific'. But, your point was well made. And has made me more appreciative of Irving Berlin.
Time will tell who will be considered "better." What will the criteria be? For "better?"
Oh, I think Paul.... by some way... has influenced music, time and an era by some way. With his mate, John.... I might be bias (no, really I am), but I figure in 500 years (I don't dare go any further), the two biggest musical acts/phenomenon will be The Beatles and Elvis..... I may be a simple man, but that'll be it. The two greatest musical influences of all time. Slap on Mozart and Beethoven on the B-side.
-
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.
-
I would think he's pretty close to 1500 songs all told.
-
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.
-
toris:
RMartinez:
toris:
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
That's an exceptional counterpoint, Bruce.... Hard to argue against. Now, with the exception of "Attack of the Killer Phantoms" (yep, I am being flippant - although...) I'm not a real big fan of musicals, but I've gotta admit there are some timeless tunes in that mix. Many of them I knew well. Even if I don't like them all, and many are covered in cheese, there is no doubt they are classics. In fact, I was surprised by the quality and amount of classics. And the quality of those he wrote for. I will, however, stick that McCartney will go down as the better composer/songwriter when this question is posed in 500 years time. Of course a lot of it will come down to the literal or extending interpretation of the term 'prolific'. But, your point was well made. And has made me more appreciative of Irving Berlin.
Time will tell who will be considered "better." What will the criteria be? For "better?"
Oh, I think Paul.... by some way... has influenced music, time and an era by some way. With his mate, John.... I might be bias (no, really I am), but I figure in 500 years (I don't dare go any further), the two biggest musical acts/phenomenon will be The Beatles and Elvis..... I may be a simple man, but that'll be it. The two greatest musical influences of all time. Slap on Mozart and Beethoven on the B-side.
Ridiculous comment. You know nothing about what will be in 500 years. Come on. Make a comment that can be taken seriously.
-
RMartinez:
toris:
RMartinez:
toris:
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
That's an exceptional counterpoint, Bruce.... Hard to argue against. Now, with the exception of "Attack of the Killer Phantoms" (yep, I am being flippant - although...) I'm not a real big fan of musicals, but I've gotta admit there are some timeless tunes in that mix. Many of them I knew well. Even if I don't like them all, and many are covered in cheese, there is no doubt they are classics. In fact, I was surprised by the quality and amount of classics. And the quality of those he wrote for. I will, however, stick that McCartney will go down as the better composer/songwriter when this question is posed in 500 years time. Of course a lot of it will come down to the literal or extending interpretation of the term 'prolific'. But, your point was well made. And has made me more appreciative of Irving Berlin.
Time will tell who will be considered "better." What will the criteria be? For "better?"
Oh, I think Paul.... by some way... has influenced music, time and an era by some way. With his mate, John.... I might be bias (no, really I am), but I figure in 500 years (I don't dare go any further), the two biggest musical acts/phenomenon will be The Beatles and Elvis..... I may be a simple man, but that'll be it. The two greatest musical influences of all time. Slap on Mozart and Beethoven on the B-side.
Ridiculous comment. You know nothing about what will be in 500 years. Come on. Make a comment that can be taken seriously.
I am being deadly serious! The Beatles and Elvis will still be the comparatives. My view and I am welcome to it. I didn't make that comment extemporaneously. William Shakespeare (not that I agree is the best writer of all-time) is still the benchmark for many. He has certainly withstood the time. The subject of studies in schools all over the globe. And I fully expect no band to surpass The Beatles or one individual to surpass Elvis. Their legacies are set in stone and I personally find it difficult to believe something better or bigger or more influential will come along. I am more than happy to stand by it.... Ridiculous? No. My view, however. And I am welcome to it.
-
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.
-
toris:
RMartinez:
toris:
RMartinez:
toris:
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
That's an exceptional counterpoint, Bruce.... Hard to argue against. Now, with the exception of "Attack of the Killer Phantoms" (yep, I am being flippant - although...) I'm not a real big fan of musicals, but I've gotta admit there are some timeless tunes in that mix. Many of them I knew well. Even if I don't like them all, and many are covered in cheese, there is no doubt they are classics. In fact, I was surprised by the quality and amount of classics. And the quality of those he wrote for. I will, however, stick that McCartney will go down as the better composer/songwriter when this question is posed in 500 years time. Of course a lot of it will come down to the literal or extending interpretation of the term 'prolific'. But, your point was well made. And has made me more appreciative of Irving Berlin.
Time will tell who will be considered "better." What will the criteria be? For "better?"
Oh, I think Paul.... by some way... has influenced music, time and an era by some way. With his mate, John.... I might be bias (no, really I am), but I figure in 500 years (I don't dare go any further), the two biggest musical acts/phenomenon will be The Beatles and Elvis..... I may be a simple man, but that'll be it. The two greatest musical influences of all time. Slap on Mozart and Beethoven on the B-side.
Ridiculous comment. You know nothing about what will be in 500 years. Come on. Make a comment that can be taken seriously.
I am being deadly serious! The Beatles and Elvis will still be the comparatives. My view and I am welcome to it. I didn't make that comment extemporaneously. William Shakespeare (not that I agree is the best writer of all-time) is still the benchmark for many. He has certainly withstood the time. The subject of studies in schools all over the globe. And I fully expect no band to surpass The Beatles or one individual to surpass Elvis. Their legacies are set in stone and I personally find it difficult to believe something better or bigger or more influential will come along. I am more than happy to stand by it.... Ridiculous? No. My view, however. And I am welcome to it.
-
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.