Paul's upcoming album review they say its HOT!
-
thehud:
Any new album by Paul McCartney us better than any album by anybody! Ha!
It seems to be almost like that for me. Perhaps I've been listening too much to today's mainstream, so I hear Petrushka or Meat Free Monday and they seem like wonders to me. Well, I'm right now looking at the billboard charts, Blurred Lines #1, who thinks that if Paul would have written and recorded that it would have seemed some kind of joke too? And many would doubt that could make it to Paul's new album... Maybe the real question is... What song is better, Blurred Lines or Petrushka? Blurred Lines
Petrushka -
Think I'd go with Blurred Lines
-
However on the new album news....The new "Q" magazine states that their will be a review of Paul's new album in ther next issue. Apparently they have heard it, small blurb says that his best work was with unhip George Martin but that a description of Beatles 67-70 as a sound was not accurate.
-
Bob you seem to have some how totally misquoted a post from the Steve Hoffman forum. Someone there has posted they have the most recent edition of Uncut magazine. It's the slightly less hip GILES Martin ( ie less hip than the other producers used ) and they say Beatles 1967 IS an accurate reference. Apart from that ......
-
Hopefully, Rolling Stone will stream Paul's new album "free" for a few weeks before its public release. They did this with Bowie's latest album & it worked great - people realized how great the album was & there was a lot of talk around it. The streaming stopped the day the album was released, forcing people to buy it, including the bonus cuts. Great marketing strategy.
-
Some times I wonder if I should get rid of "other Music" and listen to ONLY MCCARTNEY.. I go thru stages and I listen to everything when I'm wanting NEW music ...and I have been doing that with Paul
-
sorry PDS, didn't see it myself...was sent to me by a friend so I just took it as I got it
-
although Blurred Lines isn't the greatest track, it's ok and far superior to Petrushka!
-
One thing seems to be sure. The album is not gonna be the "hard-rock"/Foo Fighters-like album that was once rumoured to be. No talk about that in any new info...
-
no, I thing the Foo Fighter garage rock album is unfortunately dead...I figured as much when an article came out early this year about him not liking the way his voice sounded and thathe was going back into the studio. And then with the rumors in July where he may have had some surgical work done....maybe we'll get lucky and at some other time he will revisit those tracks and lay down a vocal performance that he is happy with
-
21st Century Paul:
One thing seems to be sure. The album is not gonna be the "hard-rock"/Foo Fighters-like album that was once rumoured to be. No talk about that in any new info...
I wouldn't be surprised if there were one or maybe two songs like that on the album. He does say it's very diverse!
-
Beatles4Ever&Ever:
favoritething:
Just musing, but knowing Mark Ronson's productions so far, he does tend to use horn sections a lot (kind of retro R&B, usually, as in Amy Winehouse's "Rehab" and "You Know I'm No Good"). If he has done that for Paul, that would be the first time in quite a while that Paul has had a real live horn section on an album, at least in a funky or soulful way. (I would love to see him with a horn section in concert again, by the way. Seeing "Rockshow" reminded me how much that can add to the experience.)
Unless Ronson was so ga-ga over working with Paul McCartney that it was really Paul running the show. Ronson seemed so in awe of Paul's ideas and abilities and how it was such an honor and all to be asked by Paul. He did seem to want to please Paul and give him exactly what he wanted. Or so I've read. That could be good or not so good. I don't think Ronson approached this project as if Paul were someone like Amy Winehouse, or like anybody else.
True, but that one RS piece quotes Ronson as saying that Paul asked him how to get a certain funk/dance energy into his music, so that could tip the balance away from Paul's control a bit.
-
favoritething:
Beatles4Ever&Ever:
favoritething:
Just musing, but knowing Mark Ronson's productions so far, he does tend to use horn sections a lot (kind of retro R&B, usually, as in Amy Winehouse's "Rehab" and "You Know I'm No Good"). If he has done that for Paul, that would be the first time in quite a while that Paul has had a real live horn section on an album, at least in a funky or soulful way. (I would love to see him with a horn section in concert again, by the way. Seeing "Rockshow" reminded me how much that can add to the experience.)
Unless Ronson was so ga-ga over working with Paul McCartney that it was really Paul running the show. Ronson seemed so in awe of Paul's ideas and abilities and how it was such an honor and all to be asked by Paul. He did seem to want to please Paul and give him exactly what he wanted. Or so I've read. That could be good or not so good. I don't think Ronson approached this project as if Paul were someone like Amy Winehouse, or like anybody else.
True, but that one RS piece quotes Ronson as saying that Paul asked him how to get a certain funk/dance energy into his music, so that could tip the balance away from Paul's control a bit.
Bear in mind that no producer speaking to the press is going to be less than glowing about Paul or say anything that suggests the producer was going to be telling Paul what to do. The last time there was even a hint of that was with Godrich, who seems not to have been called to work with Paul on anything since Chaos.
-
Bruce M.:
favoritething:
Beatles4Ever&Ever:
favoritething:
Just musing, but knowing Mark Ronson's productions so far, he does tend to use horn sections a lot (kind of retro R&B, usually, as in Amy Winehouse's "Rehab" and "You Know I'm No Good"). If he has done that for Paul, that would be the first time in quite a while that Paul has had a real live horn section on an album, at least in a funky or soulful way. (I would love to see him with a horn section in concert again, by the way. Seeing "Rockshow" reminded me how much that can add to the experience.)
Unless Ronson was so ga-ga over working with Paul McCartney that it was really Paul running the show. Ronson seemed so in awe of Paul's ideas and abilities and how it was such an honor and all to be asked by Paul. He did seem to want to please Paul and give him exactly what he wanted. Or so I've read. That could be good or not so good. I don't think Ronson approached this project as if Paul were someone like Amy Winehouse, or like anybody else.
True, but that one RS piece quotes Ronson as saying that Paul asked him how to get a certain funk/dance energy into his music, so that could tip the balance away from Paul's control a bit.
Bear in mind that no producer speaking to the press is going to be less than glowing about Paul or say anything that suggests the producer was going to be telling Paul what to do. The last time there was even a hint of that was with Godrich, who seems not to have been called to work with Paul on anything since Chaos.
Yes, I understand completely. In fact, here's a recent interview with Jason Falkner, who was brought into the Chaos sessions by Godrich specifically to be an "ally" to Nigel. Absolutely fascinating reading. Scroll down about halfway to get to the part about the Chaos sessions; quite a window into Paul's world! http://transatlanticmodern.com/2013/03/11/interview-jason-falkner/
-
Absolutely wonderful interview. Thanks for posting.
-
Actually that "Q" magazine comment I made...not my friend's fault at all...I went back and read what he sent me and I misread it. Thought it was a negative comment about Giles but reading it again it didn't seem that way the second read
-
Make of this what you will. http://www.musicbanter.com/general-music/71295-new-mccartney-album-song-titles.html
-
moptops:
Make of this what you will. http://www.musicbanter.com/general-music/71295-new-mccartney-album-song-titles.html
Interesting, but how serious can we take this? Two completely different track lists... More than thirty songs... And even an 50 year old Lennon-McCartney composition amongst it (Cilla Black's It's For You) No sources mentioned, I don't know, but it doesn't look reliable...
-
The Eggman67:
moptops:
Make of this what you will. http://www.musicbanter.com/general-music/71295-new-mccartney-album-song-titles.html
Interesting, but how serious can we take this? Two completely different track lists... More than thirty songs... And even an 50 year old Lennon-McCartney composition amongst it (Cilla Black's It's For You) No sources mentioned, I don't know, but it doesn't look reliable...
I tend to agree absolutely with you. I'm just putting it out there, that's all. Over on the Hoffman board somebody suggested Paul recorded It's For You with Diana Krall. Anyone heard of that? But I don't take this seriously. It's fun though!
-
The Eggman67:
moptops:
Make of this what you will. http://www.musicbanter.com/general-music/71295-new-mccartney-album-song-titles.html
Interesting, but how serious can we take this? Two completely different track lists... More than thirty songs... And even an 50 year old Lennon-McCartney composition amongst it (Cilla Black's It's For You) No sources mentioned, I don't know, but it doesn't look reliable...
The first list has been debunked multiple times this year. In the second list, the song titles seem generic, except for "Hosannah" and "Now and Then", the latter of which we know is that infamous Lennon demo. And I'd be very surprised if he puts out a double album (or two albums), much as the fans would love it!