Paul's new album and promotion
-
jimmix:
Remember "BIG BOYS BICKERING?" About George W. Bush. Cursed in the song.
BBB was issued about 20 years before George W. Bush became president... So I don't think it was about him; Maybe about his father???
-
The Eggman67:
jimmix:
[..] Remember "BIG BOYS BICKERING?" About George W. Bush. Cursed in the song.
BBB was issued about 20 years before George W. Bush became president... So I don't think it was about him; Maybe about his father???
8 years, time goes fast (or slow!) ;). Also, that song wasn't about any specific political leader. Also, Bill Clinton was elected (not yet in office) by the time the song got released...
-
ogoble:
Soymilk? Should change your user name to Sourmilk.
If your only response to facts is name calling, maybe you should retire to the "swamps of Alabama" you note in your profile. We know from your post history you are not a Democrat.
-
Kathryn O:
Bruce M.:
The notion that an anti-Trump song is anti-America is ridiculous. As Mark Twain said. "The only true patriotism, the only rational patriotism, is loyalty to the country all the time, loyalty to the government when it deserves it." I hope Paul goes for the throat on this one.
Well said. In fact, some of us consider ourselves Patriots for standing up for what this country was founded on as well as for the rights of various oppressed, including ourselves. My only problem is I hope Paul's song is good. Freedom really wasn't but most of those songs at that time are hokey and you're not allowed to criticize them. (I agree with the sentiment...I just think there's some bad songs out there)
That's a legitimate concern. There's no doubt that Paul's political songs have been, shall we say, uneven.
-
B J Conlee:
Nancy R:
I seriously doubt if this song was the result of "Record Marketing Advisors." I bet it was all Paul's idea.
_______________________________________________________ Yes I was being a little sarcastic although Capitol is probably loving the Internet Buzz the album is getting and maybe their key marketing people made suggestions to Paul about how to bring the song's subject matter out to the media. Paul was quite coy about it. Like you, I have no doubt the song's origin was all Paul's idea. Paul always has ideas for songs and, of course, Donald Trump has been the biggest current event's story over the last couple of years. I hope, however, that someone "close" to Paul and the subsequent album (a Nigel Godrich or even John Lennon type) will have the honesty and courage to tell him if the lyrics are bad or even below average. Paul certainly has a history of releasing some songs with mediocre lyrics at best. This song will get more scrutinized that perhaps any song Paul has ever written. I also hope that this isn't just one of Paul's quick ditties that he wrote and he is just throwing it onto the album for publicity sake. If the original lyrics are trite as I said, then hopefully it gets reworked until it does convey an intelligent/clever message. I don't know anything about Paul's new producer, but I hope he is like Mr. Godrich from this point of view. Otherwise, it won't help his overall reputation as a Solo artist or the longer term sales of the album. We'll just have to wait and see.
I had to laugh when they said it was not known if the song was for or against Trump, I was like really people - lol. Had you not noticed the "love affair" between McCartney and the Obama's the previous eight years. You are right on the money, the lyrics to this song need to be first rate and he needs somebody like Godrich to tell him the truth. (that is why CHAOS was so good from start to finish). Like I mentioned in previous post, it is my belief that this song will grab all the attention for the new album and that is not a good thing IMO. Finally, I don't think a song about Trump is really going to affect his sales that much or at all. It will get attention for a couple of days after album is released and than disappear. I would bet that if he has the song ready to go in September it is something he would play live in NY area because of NY being pretty liberal.
-
Nancy R:
B J Conlee:
Martin Luther:
I'm a Paul fanatic, but I cringe every time he tries politics. He's best being the elder statesmen, above the fray, rockin and playing the ballads.
____________________________________________________________ I agree 100%. Political/Protest songs has never been one of Paul's strengths. The only one I liked was "Give Ireland Back to the Irish" and that was mainly because it was a damn good rocking number. As many of us will agree, Paul is the master of melody. But Paul can also write some very good lyrics. Many of Paul's greatest lyrical songs however are based on "universal themes" like love, marriage, parenting, death, perseverance, prejudice against being different, racial bigotry etc. etc. He has written many great songs (Beatles, Wings, Solo) that cover these themes in an intelligent and simple but deep manner. In fairness, no one has heard this song yet. But if it is one of these "all too simplistic with little to zero solutions to complicated subjects or filled with trite and angry lyrics, Paul might have just eliminated 50% of the potential US buyers of his new album. Currently, people are so fed up with multi, multi millionaire celebrities, actors, musicians trying to tell average working Americans how to think etc etc. Unfortunately, Paul will just be thrown into the mix of yet another very, very rich celebrity trying to tell average people how to live, and what they should believe. Worse yet and as Yankeefan points out, this will be "the song" that will get all the attention. A terrible idea in my opinion. If it is a bad song in general, the huge majority of people won't be interested in the rest of the album. Again, if this song doesn't have intelligent lyrics and is filled with trite, overdone, unoriginal cliches, the whole "getting free publicity" will backfire. One thing I have loved about this Site is that it is generally anti-political. If this song (and its repercussions) is going to turn Maccaboard into a political social network, than I will gladly leave.
BJ, I'm sure the Mods will require a separate thread for discussing this new song and the political aspects of it, so just avoid that thread. No need to leave the entire forum!
That is one thread I will definitely stay away from - lol !!
-
Iowa Hawkeye Beatlefan:
soymilk:
ogoble:
I'd rather Paul NOT do an anti-Trump, anti-Clinton, or anything that is an anti-America song.
Trump is anti-American.
ogoble:
We live in a democracy here and I hope he respects that.
An essential part of democracy is criticizing officials when they do wrong. As Trump has shown and behaved with nothing but disdain for American women, minorities, our military, our intelligence officials working on the frontlines, workers of all types, parents, children, past presidents, our elected officials, and on and on, then I can few of things more fundamentally American than speaking out against him, as he is currently the biggest threat to our great country.
ogoble:
Yes, Trump is a huge jerk, but he won the election.
He lost the popular vote by millions and only won the electoral college thanks to his collaboration with the Russian government in hacking the voting systems of several states.
Please provide any proof of Russian government hacking voting systems. This investigation has been going on forever, and there are zero parameters into where they can look. That is so not how independent counsel investigations are supposed to go, but after all this fishing, there has not been a shred of evidence to support this. Sorry...just tired of hearing all of this, especially after all of the Hillary blatantly criminal activity was largely ignored by our media. Things that actually put our country at risk. Deleting 30,000 subpoenaed emails, having such computer hardware destroyed, etc. FBI director Comey looking the other way. The popular vote/electoral vote thing is also irrelevant. If I'm a candidate, and I know I had absolutely no chance of picking up electoral votes in a given state (i.e. Trump in California), I wouldn't waste any money or time trying to sway as many voters as I could there if it was a lost cause. That may cause the popular vote to not go my way, but that isn't what determines the winner. I'd be placing my capital where it helps me win. All that being said, if Paul wants to do such a song, he certainly has every right to. I certainly cannot support everything the Trumpster is doing, and some of this he has brought on himself, but the onslaught from his opponents and their accomplices in the mainstream media from day one is something the which we have never seen and hopefully never see again.
Exactly when it comes to the popular vote. I am willing to bet Trump did not spend a second in California campaigning. I doubt he did very much in NY either. He basically lived in my state (NC) because it was important swing state. I am tired of the Russian thing also because there is not only no proof that it affected the outcome it just ignores the fact that Hillary was horrible candidate. Maybe if she actually campaigned in Wisconsin she might have won the state. Maybe if she did not delete emails and have classified documents on a private server people may have not wondered about her judgement. Maybe playing the "gender" card insulted women and she lost votes. Maybe people did not like the way the DNC worked against Bernie Sanders in the primary. Maybe people thought the Benghazi attack was caused by a video was BS. Maybe people were as tired of the Clinton family as they were the Bush family. I agree McCartney has every right to do a song about Trump. To me, it will just come off as another celebrity taking a shot at Trump and unless he does it well it will come off looking like a lame publicity stunt. BTW - I did not vote for Trump - lol.
-
yankeefan7:
Exactly when it comes to the popular vote. I am willing to bet Trump did not spend a second in California campaigning. I doubt he did very much in NY either. He basically lived in my state (NC) because it was important swing state.
I don't mean this in a negative way, but this is an illogical argument. Clinton wasn't exactly visiting Texas either. Both candidates spent all their time in swing states. In fact, it was Trump that spent more time (not a ton, but more than Clinton) in states considered "non-swing." The simple reason why Clinton won the popular vote was because... she was more popular.
yankeefan7:
I am tired of the Russian thing also because there is not only no proof that it affected the outcome it just ignores the fact that Hillary was horrible candidate.
Russia flooded the internet with fake bots and fake news. Trump parroted the information, forcing the media to cover it at the expense of other issues. Clinton lost by 77,000 votes in the states she needed to win the EC. With over 130 million votes cast, I find it not only plausible, but probable that the misinformation contributed just enough to move a mere 0.5% of the voters.
yankeefan7:
Maybe people did not like the way the DNC worked against Bernie Sanders in the primary.
Most of the reason why the DNC story was a story was because the DNC servers were hacked..... by Russia. So, if you think this was a reason that contributed to her loss, that means...
yankeefan7:
I agree McCartney has every right to do a song about Trump. To me, it will just come off as another celebrity taking a shot at Trump and unless he does it well it will come off looking like a lame publicity stunt. BTW - I did not vote for Trump - lol.
I hope the song is great as well. There is certainly plenty of source material to work with.
-
Macca84:
yankeefan7:
Exactly when it comes to the popular vote. I am willing to bet Trump did not spend a second in California campaigning. I doubt he did very much in NY either. He basically lived in my state (NC) because it was important swing state.
I don't mean this in a negative way, but this is an illogical argument. Clinton wasn't exactly visiting Texas either. Both candidates spent all their time in swing states. In fact, it was Trump that spent more time (not a ton, but more than Clinton) in states considered "non-swing." The simple reason why Clinton won the popular vote was because... she was more popular.
yankeefan7:
I am tired of the Russian thing also because there is not only no proof that it affected the outcome it just ignores the fact that Hillary was horrible candidate.
Russia flooded the internet with fake bots and fake news. Trump parroted the information, forcing the media to cover it at the expense of other issues. Clinton lost by 77,000 votes in the states she needed to win the EC. With over 130 million votes cast, I find it not only plausible, but probable that the misinformation contributed just enough to move a mere 0.5% of the voters.
yankeefan7:
Maybe people did not like the way the DNC worked against Bernie Sanders in the primary.
Most of the reason why the DNC story was a story was because the DNC servers were hacked..... by Russia. So, if you think this was a reason that contributed to her loss, that means...
yankeefan7:
I agree McCartney has every right to do a song about Trump. To me, it will just come off as another celebrity taking a shot at Trump and unless he does it well it will come off looking like a lame publicity stunt. BTW - I did not vote for Trump - lol.
I hope the song is great as well. There is certainly plenty of source material to work with.
"The simple reason why Clinton won the popular vote was because... she was more popular." Clinton won the popular vote by 2.9 million, she won California by 4.6 million. In other words, she was more popular in California - lol "Most of the reason why the DNC story was a story was because the DNC servers were hacked..... by Russia. So, if you think this was a reason that contributed to her loss, that means... " No, it was a story because Sanders filed class action lawsuit against the DNC saying they worked in conjunction with Hillary Clinton campaign against him in the primaries.
-
yankeefan7:
Clinton won the popular vote by 2.9 million, she won California by 4.6 million. In other words, she was more popular in California - lol No, it was a story because Sanders filed class action lawsuit against the DNC saying they worked in conjunction with Hillary Clinton campaign against him in the primaries.
I'm trying to figure out why you all of a sudden demoted the USA to 49 states. It makes zero sense.That's like saying the Falcons really won the Super Bowl because you choose to ignore the 4th quarter. Popular vote answers the question: which candidate was more popular with the United States voters? The answer was clearly Clinton. As for the lawsuit, it was filed in Oct (by supporters not Sanders) and barely got any news coverage. What did get tons of coverage was the Wikileaks release of emails that was timed perfectly with the actual convention.
-
There is a political thread in the Talk more Talk section.
-
Besides, really looking forward to the album. Hope he debuts a new song at a concert.
-
Macca84:
yankeefan7:
Clinton won the popular vote by 2.9 million, she won California by 4.6 million. In other words, she was more popular in California - lol No, it was a story because Sanders filed class action lawsuit against the DNC saying they worked in conjunction with Hillary Clinton campaign against him in the primaries.
I'm trying to figure out why you all of a sudden demoted the USA to 49 states. It makes zero sense.That's like saying the Falcons really won the Super Bowl because you choose to ignore the 4th quarter. Popular vote answers the question: which candidate was more popular with the United States voters? The answer was clearly Clinton. As for the lawsuit, it was filed in Oct (by supporters not Sanders) and barely got any news coverage. What did get tons of coverage was the Wikileaks release of emails that was timed perfectly with the actual convention.
Ok, like another poster said back to the topic. It is not a political forum, I am done.
-
Hold the phone. Paul McCartney is expressing his feelings in song? Does he think he's a songwriter or something?
-
Just read that the release date for Ringo's new album is actually 9/15. Somehow I was thinking it has already been released or any day now. If this is true, a good educated guess for Paul's release date for his album might be in early November or around Thanksgiving Day to take advantage of the Christmas and Holiday Season. That of course wouldn't preclude Paul to unveil a song or two from the new album when he resumes his tour on 9/11 in Newark (the NYC market). One potential good thing is that it might force Paul/Band to do some actual rehearsing in August. The timing could also be right for Paul to consider a few more changes to the Setlist. After all, isn't it right that Paul played some NYC dates in 2016 at the beginning of the One-on-Tour. Just hoping and maybe being a little too optimistic. Never hurts to wish.
-
Where can we get a hard copy of the new album when it's released? Not going to any concerts.
-
SusyLuvsPaul:
Where can we get a hard copy of the new album when it's released? Not going to any concerts.
One would imagine all the usual places. No doubt you'll be able to order online from Paul's site or any number of other places. Where I come from we even have a few ancient but loved relics called record stores.
-
Bruce M.:
SusyLuvsPaul:
Where can we get a hard copy of the new album when it's released? Not going to any concerts.
One would imagine all the usual places. No doubt you'll be able to order online from Paul's site or any number of other places. Where I come from we even have a few ancient but loved relics called record stores.
-
B J Conlee:
Just read that the release date for Ringo's new album is actually 9/15. Somehow I was thinking it has already been released or any day now. If this is true, a good educated guess for Paul's release date for his album might be in early November or around Thanksgiving Day to take advantage of the Christmas and Holiday Season. That of course wouldn't preclude Paul to unveil a song or two from the new album when he resumes his tour on 9/11 in Newark (the NYC market). One potential good thing is that it might force Paul/Band to do some actual rehearsing in August. The timing could also be right for Paul to consider a few more changes to the Setlist. After all, isn't it right that Paul played some NYC dates in 2016 at the beginning of the One-on-Tour. Just hoping and maybe being a little too optimistic. Never hurts to wish.
Just checked I-Tunes and Ringo's CD comes out 9/15 but you can buy the two singles now and they are pretty good. You are probably right about the early November release for McCartney's album but it might have been better if this new album was released in time for the NY area shows. I hope he can do a couple of news songs for those NY shows because honestly I think this will be the only changes in the current set list. Sadly, I view McCartney concerts like a long running Broadway hit. Everything is very scripted with the same old stories (Hendrix, George's ukulele, Blackbird - Civil rights, Paul posing to drink it all in etc). I may be wrong but don't think there is much of a buzz about this tour. Set list is pretty stale unless you have never seen him and as you have stated some of the choices makes you shake your head. Finally, I don't think McCartney really wants to rehearse anymore. He can do this show with his band in his sleep and still make wonderful amounts of money. I hope he can prove you and I wrong and he shakes it up a bit for the NY audience.
-
yankeefan7:
B J Conlee:
Just read that the release date for Ringo's new album is actually 9/15. Somehow I was thinking it has already been released or any day now. If this is true, a good educated guess for Paul's release date for his album might be in early November or around Thanksgiving Day to take advantage of the Christmas and Holiday Season. That of course wouldn't preclude Paul to unveil a song or two from the new album when he resumes his tour on 9/11 in Newark (the NYC market). One potential good thing is that it might force Paul/Band to do some actual rehearsing in August. The timing could also be right for Paul to consider a few more changes to the Setlist. After all, isn't it right that Paul played some NYC dates in 2016 at the beginning of the One-on-Tour. Just hoping and maybe being a little too optimistic. Never hurts to wish.
Just checked I-Tunes and Ringo's CD comes out 9/15 but you can buy the two singles now and they are pretty good. You are probably right about the early November release for McCartney's album but it might have been better if this new album was released in time for the NY area shows. I hope he can do a couple of news songs for those NY shows because honestly I think this will be the only changes in the current set list. Sadly, I view McCartney concerts like a long running Broadway hit. Everything is very scripted with the same old stories (Hendrix, George's ukulele, Blackbird - Civil rights, Paul posing to drink it all in etc). I may be wrong but don't think there is much of a buzz about this tour. Set list is pretty stale unless you have never seen him and as you have stated some of the choices makes you shake your head. Finally, I don't think McCartney really wants to rehearse anymore. He can do this show with his band in his sleep and still make wonderful amounts of money. I hope he can prove you and I wrong and he shakes it up a bit for the NY audience.
_____________________________________________________ Yankeefan, Sadly I think you are most probably right regarding the NY Area shows. If anything at all, the only changes that might possibly happen would be one or two songs from the new album. Playing in the NY market (where he's already played One-on-One songs) this tour really needs some kind of extra "buzz" in NY and playing the brand new, never heard songs would certainly do the trick. Somebody mention the possibility that he would play "Freedom" at the 9/11 Show in Newark. I doubt that we will see the song since there was some controversy with the song's meaning being pro war. Don't think Paul wants to bring that up again. I do understand that at 75 Paul probably forgets many of the songs he's written in his long career. This might be especially true for "many" of the Solo songs where he's never subsequently played them since the individual album's sessions. And for the most part, Paul wants to be an "integral musical part" of the songs he plays on stage which is why he stays with so many of the same songs. This is why I never expect Paul to make wholesale changes to his setlists. Even a non-signature songs like "Let Me Roll It" continues to get played on every tour/show because Paul enjoys playing some lead guitar which carries over to the Hendrix part. Even at his age, it is easy for him to remember with constant repetition. Being in my late 60's, I do get that reasoning. Another example is his tribute song for George (Something) where Paul enjoys playing the ukulele part where he is front and center. Again, I understand it. But if he did want to make it "fresh" for the hard core fans, he could realistically do it by just adding 3-4 songs each year (even if it is part of the same tour name). He could pick really good songs (he has so many!) that he could handle with his Band's help. I think he could still rather easily play the bass on "My Brave Face" and something like "Put It There" would be very easy with his Band. That is the perplexing part where a big time fan like me has been so disappointed. Just change up things a little bit each year. I know I have said this a million times so I do apologize. As someone else recently said, we can still hope that Paul will read some of these threads. The recent "Adding 3 songs" in the Rock Show Section on this Site had some great suggestions. For the US audience, this final leg is the last chance and they still have time in August for a little rehearsing. We will just have to wait and see.