The merits of McCartney 2
-
Michelley:
javilu:
Bruce M.:
Nah. About a third of the album is pretty good and the rest is nearly unlistenable. The negative reviews were mostly right.
100% with you, Bruce. If instead of McCartney the album was by John Doe it would have sunk without a trace.
Not quite. A few years ago, DJ's in the UK rediscovered McCartney II and started playing Temporary Secretary and it proved popular. No one on the dance floor knew it was Macca; in fact, they were shocked it was him. They just thought it was a great track. His name had nothing to do with them thinking it was a great track. And really your argument ("it would have sunk without a trace without McCartney's name attached") ignores two facts: (1) It did sink without a trace in the 80's when his name WAS attached; it's only been in recent years that the album has caught on because the music sounds current (at times). and (2) you could make that argument about the work of any famous artist, including some Beatles songs that would have "sunk without a trace" without the Beatles name attached. But there's no point in speculating because we can make them unfamous. We'll never never know.
I have to correct your nonsense that the album did 'sink without trace' IT WAS A NUMBER ONE ALBUM IN THE UK, AND A NUMBER 3 ALBUM IN THE U.S I guess you perhaps read a review which stated this completely false information and repeated it, so no hard feelings. This is how if something false is repeated often enough it becomes 'fact'. Happens all the time. I always do my own research.
-
ewanme:
I have to correct your nonsense that the album did 'sink without trace' IT WAS A NUMBER ONE ALBUM IN THE UK, AND A NUMBER 3 ALBUM IN THE U.S I guess you perhaps read a review which stated this completely false information and repeated it, so no hard feelings. This is how if something false is repeated often enough it becomes 'fact'. Happens all the time. I always do my own research.
Goodness why are you shouting? I can hear you just fine. And there was nothing false in what I wrote. You were confusing high initial sales with the album's longterm status. Just because an album is No. 1 or No. 3 doesn't mean it has a lasting legacy. And McCartney II did not have a lasting legacy in the 80s. It wasn't considered an important album of that year and as the decade progressed it DID sink without a trace. It was only years later that the album began to be played and resurrected by new listeners.
-
audi:
moptops:
javilu:
With all due respect, I don't mind how many people adore "Temporary Secretary" and the like, to me it will always be Macca at his embarasing worst.
Not while Pipes Of Peace remains on this Earth...
Word.
Double word.
-
moptops:
javilu:
With all due respect, I don't mind how many people adore "Temporary Secretary" and the like, to me it will always be Macca at his embarasing worst.
Not while Pipes Of Peace remains on this Earth...
"Hey Hey" and "Tug of peace" aside, Pipes is superior to Macca 2. As much as I enjoy "One of these days", "Waterfalls" and "Coming up" the rest is just Paul playing with his toys.
-
Michelley:
ewanme:
I have to correct your nonsense that the album did 'sink without trace' IT WAS A NUMBER ONE ALBUM IN THE UK, AND A NUMBER 3 ALBUM IN THE U.S I guess you perhaps read a review which stated this completely false information and repeated it, so no hard feelings. This is how if something false is repeated often enough it becomes 'fact'. Happens all the time. I always do my own research.
Goodness why are you shouting? I can hear you just fine. And there was nothing false in what I wrote. You were confusing high initial sales with the album's longterm status. Just because an album is No. 1 or No. 3 doesn't mean it has a lasting legacy. And McCartney II did not have a lasting legacy in the 80s. It wasn't considered an important album of that year and as the decade progressed it DID sink without a trace. It was only years later that the album began to be played and resurrected by new listeners.
Hi Michelley, I wasn't shouting
And we'll have to agree to disagree on your point, which is just your personal opinion.
-
javilu:
With all due respect, I don't mind how many people adore "Temporary Secretary" and the like, to me it will always be Macca at his embarasing worst.
Disagree. Wholeheartedly.... At the time, I did not like the little "computer bits" as I called it in the day latching on to the song... and I still don't like the electronic bits, but somehow my mind has stripped that aside... I embrace the acoustic side of it, the fun of the lyrics, and ignore the vapid "electronics". In fact, when I'm listening to it now, there are no electronic bits. It's just a fun song. Kinda satirical. Very clever
-
javilu:
moptops:
javilu:
With all due respect, I don't mind how many people adore "Temporary Secretary" and the like, to me it will always be Macca at his embarasing worst.
Not while Pipes Of Peace remains on this Earth...
"Hey Hey" and "Tug of peace" aside, Pipes is superior to Macca 2. As much as I enjoy "One of these days", "Waterfalls" and "Coming up" the rest is just Paul playing with his toys.
Agree with you on Hey Hey. It was a silly interlude. But I have an affection for Tug of Peace.... I think it is a rare occasion since Back to the Egg where he allows his voice to rip... it's only fleeting but he does let his voice rip for just a moment in that bit of Tug of Peace. Not sure I have heard it "rip" too much since that. All Those Years Ago.
-
Michelley:
ewanme:
I have to correct your nonsense that the album did 'sink without trace' IT WAS A NUMBER ONE ALBUM IN THE UK, AND A NUMBER 3 ALBUM IN THE U.S I guess you perhaps read a review which stated this completely false information and repeated it, so no hard feelings. This is how if something false is repeated often enough it becomes 'fact'. Happens all the time. I always do my own research.
Goodness why are you shouting? I can hear you just fine. And there was nothing false in what I wrote. You were confusing high initial sales with the album's longterm status. Just because an album is No. 1 or No. 3 doesn't mean it has a lasting legacy. And McCartney II did not have a lasting legacy in the 80s. It wasn't considered an important album of that year and as the decade progressed it DID sink without a trace. It was only years later that the album began to be played and resurrected by new listeners.
Except you didn't say "it didn't leave a lasting legacy," you said it "sank without a trace." It didn't. As pointed out, it did reasonably well in the charts (better than Back to the Egg, at least in the U.S.). The single Coming Up was a major hit -- enough so that, with it and Elton John's Little Jeannie in the Top 10 at the same time, Billboard magazine did an article about how "veteran artists" like Paul and Elton still had chart strength,.It was certified gold in the U.S. Failure to be considered an important, influential or outstanding album is not sinking without a trace. Ringo's recent albums have sunk without a trace. No one seriously considers recent albums by Katy Perry or Miley Cyrus as outstanding or influential, but they most surely did not sink without a trace.
-
Bruce M.:
Michelley:
ewanme:
I have to correct your nonsense that the album did 'sink without trace' IT WAS A NUMBER ONE ALBUM IN THE UK, AND A NUMBER 3 ALBUM IN THE U.S I guess you perhaps read a review which stated this completely false information and repeated it, so no hard feelings. This is how if something false is repeated often enough it becomes 'fact'. Happens all the time. I always do my own research.
Goodness why are you shouting? I can hear you just fine. And there was nothing false in what I wrote. You were confusing high initial sales with the album's longterm status. Just because an album is No. 1 or No. 3 doesn't mean it has a lasting legacy. And McCartney II did not have a lasting legacy in the 80s. It wasn't considered an important album of that year and as the decade progressed it DID sink without a trace. It was only years later that the album began to be played and resurrected by new listeners.
Except you didn't say "it didn't leave a lasting legacy," you said it "sank without a trace." It didn't. As pointed out, it did reasonably well in the charts (better than Back to the Egg, at least in the U.S.). The single Coming Up was a major hit -- enough so that, with it and Elton John's Little Jeannie in the Top 10 at the same time, Billboard magazine did an article about how "veteran artists" like Paul and Elton still had chart strength,.It was certified gold in the U.S. Failure to be considered an important, influential or outstanding album is not sinking without a trace. Ringo's recent albums have sunk without a trace. No one seriously considers recent albums by Katy Perry or Miley Cyrus as outstanding or influential, but they most surely did not sink without a trace.
Try reading my post. I said it "sank without a trace in the 80's" which it did. The album was gradually forgotten over the course of the 80s. That's what sinking means. And that's what I meant. Also. check your facts. McCartney II did not do better on the charts than Back to the Egg in the US. Back to the Egg had earned platinum status in the US (sold over 1,000,000). McCartney II has only earned gold (sold 500,000). In fact, McCartney II was the first album by Paul NOT to earn platinum status in the run of albums from Band on the Run to the abysmal Pipes of Peace. Every one of Paul's albums in that stretch earned platinum status EXCEPT McCartney II.
-
I have a soft spot for McCartney 2. I love it for what it is: a loose collection of grooves, half-finished songs, exploring ideas and textures. It's like looking into the sketchbook of a great artist before he delves into his major compositions. I don't measure it as a standard album, or compare it to the likes of a Band on the Run or a Revolver. It's not that kind of album. But for what it is, I really enjoy the spirit of it. It's like being a fly on the wall in Paul's studio or barn, and hearing what he's cooking up. I find Paul being very raw and honest through a lot of the tracks which is so refreshing. Some of his "proper" albums sound like they've been through the gears of The Committee and feel rather artificial in the end. I love hearing Paul as a one-man band, he really can come up with some fascinating grooves and ideas. It reminds me that so many of his co-musicians throughout his solo years just aren't at the same level as him, IMHO. (But the paradox is, he NEEDS someone to push him to be better). I've also really enjoyed all the bootleg tracks from these sessions that can be found on the internet. I think M2 is a great hippie album, very organic. The big anomaly on this album is Coming Up. I consider it a very finished song, and I love it to pieces. It's Paul at his peak and I think it stands well with any of his classics. A couple of the other songs, like Temporary Secretary and One Of These Days, are fantastic, too, and I wish he had developed them more, it seems a shame they weren't worked on more. Love the riff and verse in Temporary Secretary, but oh, I think that chorus needs help, lol.
-
Michelley:
Bruce M.:
Nah. About a third of the album is pretty good and the rest is nearly unlistenable. The negative reviews were mostly right.
Nope. The negative reviews in 1980 were mostly wrong. Badly wrong. And in fact, the recent reviews of the McCartney II reissue were uniformly positive in 2011. Music caught up to where his head was at back then. Funny how that happens to Paul a lot.
I wouldn't say McCartney II is unlistenable. But I like the Bonus CD better.
-
I always thought of McCartney II as Paul's over endulging album. Like he was thinking "I'm fucking Paul McCartney and I can release any crap I please".
-
Michelley:
Bruce M.:
Michelley:
ewanme:
I have to correct your nonsense that the album did 'sink without trace' IT WAS A NUMBER ONE ALBUM IN THE UK, AND A NUMBER 3 ALBUM IN THE U.S I guess you perhaps read a review which stated this completely false information and repeated it, so no hard feelings. This is how if something false is repeated often enough it becomes 'fact'. Happens all the time. I always do my own research.
Goodness why are you shouting? I can hear you just fine. And there was nothing false in what I wrote. You were confusing high initial sales with the album's longterm status. Just because an album is No. 1 or No. 3 doesn't mean it has a lasting legacy. And McCartney II did not have a lasting legacy in the 80s. It wasn't considered an important album of that year and as the decade progressed it DID sink without a trace. It was only years later that the album began to be played and resurrected by new listeners.
Except you didn't say "it didn't leave a lasting legacy," you said it "sank without a trace." It didn't. As pointed out, it did reasonably well in the charts (better than Back to the Egg, at least in the U.S.). The single Coming Up was a major hit -- enough so that, with it and Elton John's Little Jeannie in the Top 10 at the same time, Billboard magazine did an article about how "veteran artists" like Paul and Elton still had chart strength,.It was certified gold in the U.S. Failure to be considered an important, influential or outstanding album is not sinking without a trace. Ringo's recent albums have sunk without a trace. No one seriously considers recent albums by Katy Perry or Miley Cyrus as outstanding or influential, but they most surely did not sink without a trace.
Try reading my post. I said it "sank without a trace in the 80's" which it did. The album was gradually forgotten over the course of the 80s. That's what sinking means. And that's what I meant. Also. check your facts. McCartney II did not do better on the charts than Back to the Egg in the US. Back to the Egg had earned platinum status in the US (sold over 1,000,000). McCartney II has only earned gold (sold 500,000). In fact, McCartney II was the first album by Paul NOT to earn platinum status in the run of albums from Band on the Run to the abysmal Pipes of Peace. Every one of Paul's albums in that stretch earned platinum status EXCEPT McCartney II.
Oh Michelley, please respond to what I actually wrote, not what you would have liked me to have written. I said McCartney II did better in the charts than Back to the Egg. McCartney II reached #3 and produced a major hit single in Coming Up. Back to the Egg peaked at #8, and never had a U.S. single rise above #20. Not a close contest. As for "sinking without a trace in the '80s," it was released in 1980, charted well, and it's lead single was all over the radio. It did not sink without a trace. Pretty much every pop album except for a small handful is gradually forgotten in the decade after it's released, so that definition of sinking without a trace is meaningless. You're welcome to disagree with me or anyone about the album's relative merits, but as they say, everyone has the right to their own opinion but not to their own facts.
-
Bruce M.:
Oh Michelley, please respond to what I actually wrote, not what you would have liked me to have written. I said McCartney II did better in the charts than Back to the Egg. McCartney II reached #3 and produced a major hit single in Coming Up. Back to the Egg peaked at #8, and never had a U.S. single rise above #20. Not a close contest. As for "sinking without a trace in the '80s," it was released in 1980, charted well, and it's lead single was all over the radio. It did not sink without a trace. Pretty much every pop album except for a small handful is gradually forgotten in the decade after it's released, so that definition of sinking without a trace is meaningless. You're welcome to disagree with me or anyone about the album's relative merits, but as they say, everyone has the right to their own opinion but not to their own facts.
It's not a close contest when Back to the Egg has platinum status and McCartney II doesn't. Clearly Black to the Egg had more staying power in the 80s as an album since, despite it's lower initial charting, it went on to sell DOUBLE what McCartney II sold. Who cares how McCartney 2 charted initially if ultimately the album disappeared -- ie, sank -- from commercial and critical attention in the 80s, which it did. Obviously. I've made clear all along that I was talking about longterm success/rep of the album "in the 80's" which is what I said in my earlier post. It's you who keeps focusing on its initial charting and ignoring the fact that McCartney II was Paul's least commercially successful album in that period. The facts clearly show that McCartney II charted better initially and then sank. Back to the Egg didn't start out as high but it hung in there longer. And neither album had much critical respect in the 80s, something that has changed now at least for McCartney II.
-
Bruce M.:
Michelley:
Bruce M.:
Michelley:
ewanme:
I have to correct your nonsense that the album did 'sink without trace' IT WAS A NUMBER ONE ALBUM IN THE UK, AND A NUMBER 3 ALBUM IN THE U.S I guess you perhaps read a review which stated this completely false information and repeated it, so no hard feelings. This is how if something false is repeated often enough it becomes 'fact'. Happens all the time. I always do my own research.
Goodness why are you shouting? I can hear you just fine. And there was nothing false in what I wrote. You were confusing high initial sales with the album's longterm status. Just because an album is No. 1 or No. 3 doesn't mean it has a lasting legacy. And McCartney II did not have a lasting legacy in the 80s. It wasn't considered an important album of that year and as the decade progressed it DID sink without a trace. It was only years later that the album began to be played and resurrected by new listeners.
Except you didn't say "it didn't leave a lasting legacy," you said it "sank without a trace." It didn't. As pointed out, it did reasonably well in the charts (better than Back to the Egg, at least in the U.S.). The single Coming Up was a major hit -- enough so that, with it and Elton John's Little Jeannie in the Top 10 at the same time, Billboard magazine did an article about how "veteran artists" like Paul and Elton still had chart strength,.It was certified gold in the U.S. Failure to be considered an important, influential or outstanding album is not sinking without a trace. Ringo's recent albums have sunk without a trace. No one seriously considers recent albums by Katy Perry or Miley Cyrus as outstanding or influential, but they most surely did not sink without a trace.
Try reading my post. I said it "sank without a trace in the 80's" which it did. The album was gradually forgotten over the course of the 80s. That's what sinking means. And that's what I meant. Also. check your facts. McCartney II did not do better on the charts than Back to the Egg in the US. Back to the Egg had earned platinum status in the US (sold over 1,000,000). McCartney II has only earned gold (sold 500,000). In fact, McCartney II was the first album by Paul NOT to earn platinum status in the run of albums from Band on the Run to the abysmal Pipes of Peace. Every one of Paul's albums in that stretch earned platinum status EXCEPT McCartney II.
Oh Michelley, please respond to what I actually wrote, not what you would have liked me to have written. I said McCartney II did better in the charts than Back to the Egg. McCartney II reached #3 and produced a major hit single in Coming Up. Back to the Egg peaked at #8, and never had a U.S. single rise above #20. Not a close contest. As for "sinking without a trace in the '80s," it was released in 1980, charted well, and it's lead single was all over the radio. It did not sink without a trace. Pretty much every pop album except for a small handful is gradually forgotten in the decade after it's released, so that definition of sinking without a trace is meaningless. You're welcome to disagree with me or anyone about the album's relative merits, but as they say, everyone has the right to their own opinion but not to their own facts.
I agree with Bruce there, especially '' Pretty much every pop album except for a small handful is gradually forgotten in the decade after it's released, so that definition of sinking without a trace is meaningless. ''
-
ewanme:
I agree with Bruce there, especially '' Pretty much every pop album except for a small handful is gradually forgotten in the decade after it's released, so that definition of sinking without a trace is meaningless. ''
But that's not much of an original point at all, is it? Of course most albums are forgotten. I'm talking about in the context of Paul's work where every one of his albums from Band on the Run to Pipes of Peace hit platinum status except McCartney II. McCartney II sank a lot faster than any of his other albums in that period. Obviously. I'm really not sure what you and Bruce are disputing when the sales numbers show that clearly.
-
It was in the year-end top 40 albums in the UK for 1980.
-
ewanme:
It was in the year-end top 40 albums in the UK for 1980.
You mean sales wise? I think McCartney 2 has "gold" certification in the UK but I'm not sure what "gold" means in Britain. In the US, gold means an album sold 500,000 copies. The platinum status (million seller) I mentioned was only for the US charts.
-
Hi Michelle, Yes sales wise it was one of the 40 best sellers in the UK for 1980.
-
I have been a Paul Fan for over 40 years, and YES there are things I dont love from him...but over times I have gone back and listened to things again and seen them in a newer light...Paul has always had a feel for a SOUND , sometimes it doesnt make a WHOLE SONG...He has decent songs from every album he has put out...it doesnt mean the Album works as a whole...it seems People dont go back and re listen to the music..he can make me Cringe He can make ME Rock and Smile and HE CAN make me Think..my 2 cents..