"Underappreciated Genius."
-
So says Toronto based Canadian songwriter Jim Cuddy of the band "Blue Rodeo". I saw the quote from him in the Toronto Star on Saturday in which he was interviewed and was asked: "Who most influenced you as a musician?" His answer: "Paul McCartney. I still feel that he?s one of the most underappreciated geniuses in music." I know I'm preaching to the choir here but I strongly agree with Jim about that. If it wasn't for Paul (along with John, George and Ringo of course) I never would have become a musician.
-
Awesome!
-
thanks for posting this quote. It's very true, it's nice to see this quote coming from someone in the music business, who understands and appreciates music.
-
i disagree, i think paul mccartney is very much known for being a genius/god of music, just cuz its not preeched everyday in the papers doesnt mean people have forgot. I think some of the boardies on here will read one small bad comment about paul and blow it up like its blasfemy. ANY MUSIC EXPERT will tell you mccartney is a genius
-
mccartneyandwings:
i disagree, i think paul mccartney is very much known for being a genius/god of music, just cuz its not preeched everyday in the papers doesnt mean people have forgot. I think some of the boardies on here will read one small bad comment about paul and blow it up like its blasfemy. ANY MUSIC EXPERT will tell you mccartney is a genius
I don't agree with that. While many do give him praise for his part in the Beatles, there are many others who dismissed his music after the Beatles - which is very unfortunate for these people, as well as short sighted on their part. The number of slights against Paul, particularly towards his song lyrics is staggering. Even nowadays, when the media has finally 'shrined' Beatle Paul, they ignore his post Beatles work for the most part (basically to many members of the media, Band On The Run was Paul's solo career). Most of the good reviews I read of Paul's mostly pertain to his live act, not his new records. I will say this in your favor though, it seems like Paul's solo career is in the process of being reassessed and more people seem to understand what they missed the first time around. And several of his latest albums have garnered better reviews...without being much better (if at all) than albums they've previously slammed. And lastly, since Linda's death and his subsequent very public divorce, I think the media has started to view Paul in a more sympathetic manner as well.
-
rich n:
While many do give him praise for his part in the Beatles, there are many others who dismissed his music after the Beatles
Yes, I think this is unfortunately true.
-
[quote="KenMac"]"Who most influenced you as a musician?" There is no doubt in my mind that the Beatles were the FIRST musicians to light a musical fire within me. As I mentioned once before I heard Paul sing and play "Michelle" on acoustic guitar, and I just knew at that moment I had to learn to play guitar so I could play it. Another big influence initially was Jose' Feliciano when he did his version of the Door's "Light My Fire"....it just blew me away. I loved that Classical/Spanish style of his and wanted to play just like him. Actually saw him in Concert about a year ago.....what a great show...I went home feeling "sky high"!!
-
KenMac:
So says Toronto based Canadian songwriter Jim Cuddy of the band "Blue Rodeo". I saw the quote from him in the Toronto Star on Saturday in which he was interviewed and was asked: "Who most influenced you as a musician?" His answer: "Paul McCartney. I still feel that he?s one of the most underappreciated geniuses in music." I know I'm preaching to the choir here but I strongly agree with Jim about that. If it wasn't for Paul (along with John, George and Ringo of course) I never would have become a musician.
Great to hear. Blue Rodeo is a cool band. Thanks for posting that, KenMac.
-
Shawn:
KenMac:
So says Toronto based Canadian songwriter Jim Cuddy of the band "Blue Rodeo". I saw the quote from him in the Toronto Star on Saturday in which he was interviewed and was asked: "Who most influenced you as a musician?" His answer: "Paul McCartney. I still feel that he?s one of the most underappreciated geniuses in music." I know I'm preaching to the choir here but I strongly agree with Jim about that. If it wasn't for Paul (along with John, George and Ringo of course) I never would have become a musician.
Great to hear. Blue Rodeo is a cool band. Thanks for posting that, KenMac.
You're welcome Shawn. Over the past three years or so I've really grown to appreciate Blue Rodeo. They've got a lot of really good songs. I've often read critics in other magazines and newspapers making comparisons of the Jim Cuddy/Greg Keelor songwriting team to that of John Lennon and Paul McCartney. One critic even called them "The Canadian Lennon and McCartney". It's not hard to see why when you hear their music. FWIW regarding all the comments so far, I think over the years people have recognized for the most part how special Pauls songs really are. I agree with Jim Cuddy and others here that he truly is a musical genius but he's *definitely* not underappreciated here.
-
[quote="rich n"][quote="mccartneyandwings"]i disagree, i think paul mccartney is very much known for being a genius/god of music, just cuz its not preeched everyday in the papers doesnt mean people have forgot. I think some of the boardies on here will read one small bad comment about paul and blow it up like its blasfemy. ANY MUSIC EXPERT will tell you mccartney is a genius I don't agree with that. While many do give him praise for his part in the Beatles, there are many others who dismissed his music after the Beatles - which is very unfortunate for these people, as well as short sighted on their part. The number of slights against Paul, particularly towards his song lyrics is staggering. Even nowadays, when the media has finally 'shrined' Beatle Paul, they ignore his post Beatles work for the most part (basically to many members of the media, Band On The Run was Paul's solo career). Most of the good reviews I read of Paul's mostly pertain to his live act, not his new records. I will say this in your favor though, it seems like Paul's solo career is in the process of being reassessed and more people seem to understand what they missed the first time around. And several of his latest albums have garnered better reviews...without being much better (if at all) than albums they've previously slammed. And lastly, since Linda's death and his subsequent very public divorce, I think the media has started to view Paul in a more sympathetic manner as well. I still disagree with you,,,, my point is that most of the people on this forum will "bitch and moan" and make a huge deal about any bad reviews paul gets. Kinda like you actually.... You make in seem like there are a staggering amount of people in the media that shit on paul.. but they do that to ANY BAND.. no mattter how good an artist is or matter how much of a legend paul McCartney is.. they will always be critics with bad reviews.. BUT there is absolutely no doubt that the GOOD has always outweight the BAD with paul...... And finally you and many others may get the impression that the beatles over shadows paul solo.. BECAUSE IT DOES... keep in mind the beatles were a world phenomenon and are considered the inavators of a lot of things... but still its well documented that pauls solo carreer is a carreer in itself....... #1 albums all through the 70s, and still to this day does well in the charts
-
And I still don't agree with you
- to assume that I never thought any of Paul's work warranted negative criticism is pretty absurd and means you haven't read very many of my posts. And if you believe that Paul has garnered more positive than negative reviews during the majority of his post Beatles career is a pretty sheltered view in my opinion. All you have to do is go to google, search for reviews for each album - starting in 1970, and see for yourself. -
Sadly you're right rich n. I have read enough bad reviews of albums I love by Paul to know that plenty of musicians and people in the music business don't appreciate his solo work. I believe that a lot of Paul's work after The Beatles is underappreciated.
-
It's best to take music critics reviews of Paul's albums with a pinch of salt.When you think the savaging RAM received at the time in '71, you know they are not really worth relying on.Back To The Egg is another record the critics loathed,but it's one of my favourites,and 30 years down the line it's charms haven't dimmed for me. Having purchased a copy of the film One Hand Clapping, it more than any other Paul documentary shows up why i love him so much.The clips of Wings playing live in Abbey Road Studios is a real joy.Hearing the songs Soily,Junior's Farm,Jet,Band On The Run and Nineteen Hundred And Eighty Five in such a setting gives me goosebumps.It's Paul at his best,the vocals are awesome,and he seems to be having a ball.It really was a golden era for me, and sums up his genius as a songwriter and as a great rock vocalist.(one of the greatest singers of the rock era)
-
_
[quote="rich n"]And I still don't agree with you wink - to assume that I never thought any of Paul's work warranted negative criticism is pretty absurd and means you haven't read very many of my posts. And if you believe that Paul has garnered more positive than negative reviews during the majority of his post Beatles career is a pretty sheltered view in my opinion. All you have to do is go to google, search for reviews for each album - starting in 1970, and see for yourself.
_I never said just post beatles career, i meant his career as a whole. (including the beatles) oh god the man is considered the most successful man EVER IN MUSIC... ginness book of w.r..... p.s. ive read the reviews, and my point is you are overlooking the good reviews, and consintrating on the bad ones and blowing them up.
-
mccartneyandwings:
ive read the reviews, and my point is you are overlooking the good reviews, and consintrating on the bad ones and blowing them up.
i think you've hit the nail on the head it seems to me, that when Paul releases an album and there's say 5 reviews..4 positive, 1 mixed or negative ..people on this board will not only bemoan the mixed/negative review, loudly.. ..they will also find any criticism that the other 4 positive reviews have in them ..and only reflect on that the glass is always half empty i went to Wikipedia to check how the albums did critically ..and by far, Paul has had more positive critical reaction than negative in his solo career check for yourselves (remember, HALF FULL) [aul_McCartney_albums" >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category
aul_McCartney_albums](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category<img src=) -
Walrus68:
mccartneyandwings:
ive read the reviews, and my point is you are overlooking the good reviews, and consintrating on the bad ones and blowing them up.
i think you've hit the nail on the head it seems to me, that when Paul releases an album and there's say 5 reviews..4 positive, 1 mixed or negative ..people on this board will not only bemoan the mixed/negative review, loudly.. ..they will also find any criticism that the other 4 positive reviews have in them ..and only reflect on that the glass is always half empty i went to Wikipedia to check how the albums did critically ..and by far, Paul has had more positive critical reaction than negative in his solo career check for yourselves (remember, HALF FULL) [aul_McCartney_albums" >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category
aul_McCartney_albums](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category<img src=)I didn't see any critiques given in that link...instead, why don't you check out billboard, where you can read the 'original' reviews of each album...
There are a lot of critics who'll say today (for example) Ram is great while the album was bashed by critics when it was first released in 1971. I don't know the ages of either of you. But your revisionist attitude would lead me to believe that you are young to the point where you only recall what critics are saying today, after today's critics have begun to reevaluate Paul's solo career... And as far as the previous post, you say you're referring to his entire career, including his Beatles career...I say 'no Sh*t, I knew that' But from strictly a time perspective, he was in the Beatles for a very small percentage of his long recording career. It only stands to reason that there are more examples of album critiques from his solo career...This is a point I thought was stupidly obvious and didn't have to be explained until I read your post... -
you click on the link you pick an album, click on it you read the section "Professional Reviews" here's one for 'Red Rose Speedway' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Rose_Speedway
-
went to Billboard to read the 'original' review.. and you know what? it's only ONE review there are hundreds of reviewers out there so, once again.. if 4 out of 5 reviews are positive.. 80% of critics like the album sadly, it's the 20% that gets the attention
-
Walrus68:
you click on the link you pick an album, click on it you read the section "Professional Reviews" here's one for 'Red Rose Speedway' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Rose_Speedway
[list][*][http://www.robertchristgau.com/get_album.php?id=7380]Robert](http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:dudkyl14xpzb~T1]Allmusic - 4/5 stars[/url]</strong> [*]<strong>[url=<a href=) Christgau - D+[/url] [*][url=http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/wings/albums/album/270188/review/6210500/red_rose_speedway">Rolling Stone - favourable[/list:u] 2 out 3 positive
-
I remember "Press To Play" getting an overall mauling by the critics and I thought it was a pretty darned good album. "Flowers In The Dirt" received widespread critical acclaim at the time and then, to be completely truthful, I can't remember one seriously positive review of "Off The Ground" and I loved that LP. It's not a case of having a selective memory. I have read lots of music magazines since I was old enough to appreciate them and have a fairly clear recollection of what has been said about Macca's albums from the 80's onwards. I may not remember individual reviews, but I remember the consensus.
