"Underappreciated Genius."
-
"Press To Play"[list][*][Rolling Stone - favourable](http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:3at67ui0h0jg]Allmusic - 2.5/5 stars[/URL]</strong> [*]<strong>[url=http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/paulmccartney/albums/album/212834/review/5945246/press_to_play)[/list:u] "Off The Ground"[list][*][Rolling Stone - 3.5/5 stars](http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:qiaxqj3bojsa]Allmusic - 2/5 stars[/url]</strong> [*]<strong>[url=http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/paulmccartney/albums/album/210717/review/5941223/off_the_ground)[/list:u] click the name of publication to read the full reviews
-
rich n im pretty sure your letting you own opinion take over a little bit. and i agree with walrus entirely. maybe rich your under the impressive that only one major magazine reviews albums.
-
How can a man who has been knighted, plus an MBE, has a place in the Guinness Book of records as the most successful songwriter ever, sold countless millions of records, with umpteen homes and riches beyond anyone's wildest dreams, possibly be described as an under-appreciated genius?
-
manchester man:
How can a man who has been knighted, plus an MBE, has a place in the Guinness Book of records as the most successful songwriter ever, sold countless millions of records, with umpteen homes and riches beyond anyone's wildest dreams, possibly be described as an under-appreciated genius?
I know it sounds kind of silly but there are still a lot of people out there who take Paul and his music for granted. There's no doubt in my mind that Paul truly is a genius when it comes to songwriting but I think Jim Cuddy was saying that overall people tend to overlook Paul. They dismiss some of his songs as lightweight, "The Frog Song", "Silly Love Songs", "Let "Em In", etc. but look at his latest Fireman album. It's getting rave reviews from the critics. I also think that, unfortunately, there are a lot of people who consider Paul a bit of an "oldies" act which of course isn't true. I remember when "Fine LIne" came out I was e-mailing radio stations and practically begging them to play it but radio is *way* too formatted these days. The objective used to be to play good songs on the radio but that doesn't seem to be the case anymore. If it was, the radio programmers would be playing loads of Paul McCartney songs instead of the same old stuff. Anyway I kind of went off on a tangent there but I agree it is kind of silly but I'm glad Jim Cuddy did mention Paul. Maybe it'll make people who think of him as a "lightweight" or "oldies" performer see him in a different light, as a person who can write very deep, touching, rocking and ultimately modern music.
-
Jim Cuddy from one of Candada's top bands, Blue Rodeo (Oh, you've got to try...try...try! ...) named Paul as his musical idol on CBCs late night talk show "The Hour." You can see the inteview on the CBC website. They mention him right at the end of the interview edit: the part with just their interview is at http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/Shows/The_Hour/ID=1343797026 The show: http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/Shows/The_Hour/ID=1342959935 On that show the Beatles seem to keep coming up. Before, months ago maybe, they had an interview with a journalist promoting a book, and he mentioned having been at the Maharishi's place in India at the same time as the Beatles. He said he didn't bother them for autographs etc., but did chat with them, and said Paul was the most forthcoming. I think it was the day after Blue Rodeo, someone mentioned the Beatles again, and there have been others. One time the host "Strombo" poked a bit of fun at Paul, saying he can "blow you away with "Live and Let Die, or he can do this..." " then showed a clip of a funy song with Paul strumming away unaccompanied by a band, on something like his mandolin, singing a song I don't know.
-
It's nothing big, but "The Hour" just mentioned Paul again last night (Wed Dec 2). It was in their fiction skit they do with backstage people pretending to have conversations, they had Paul on a list of suspected communtists, along with Bruce Springsteen and others. It was obviously a joke. While I'm at it, another time, some time ago, when they had Ann Murray interviewed, they showed a picture of her with John Lennon. He told her she had done the best cover of a Beatle's song he'd heard. (You won't see me).
-
Wendy2066:
While I'm at it, another time, some time ago, when they had Ann Murray interviewed, they showed a picture of her with John Lennon. He told her she had done the best cover of a Beatle's song he'd heard. (You won't see me).
It's nice to know that many Canadian musical artists have shown great respect for The Beatles over the years and in some cases, have created wonderful cover versions of their songs.
-
In general Paul's post Beatle career is mocked especially here in the UK.I was reading a newspaper this week and they were saying that they hoped Paul would play a Beatles song on the X Factor as any song from the last 39 years was rubbish.It's this ignorance he has to fight against,mind you his setlist probably hints at this jaundiced view.Any little negativity shouldn't get to me but it's so wide of the mark this article it angers me.Paul's career has been erratic at times but there's still plenty of great songs that stand up to his Beatle works.I suppose he doesn't help himself by playing "Beatle Paul" over the last 20 years but his Wings/solo career is not an artistic wasteland and it should be celebrated not dismissed.I suppose an artist of Paul's longevity is going to suffer from negative press as he heads towards 70,but it's the ignorance of it that agitates me.I bet most haven't listened to anything for years so it's just ill informed garbage.Rant over,for now.
-
If I had a pound for every time some fool has come up to me and ranted about how poor Paul's solo career is, I'd be a very rich man! It's always people who have heard very little of his music as well.
-
its the same in my little part of the world. because i know better,i actually 'judge' peoples musical worth by their opinion of paul mccartney as a solo act. if i hear the usuall mince about him being 'rubbish since the beatles' i immediately dismiss anything else they say out of sight. in this country it takes a far more educated listener to dismiss the popular theory with regards pauls solo work because its everwhere you look! mind you as bocyie says paul dosent do himself ANY favours these days.its almost as if he now agrees with his critics down the years.
-
KenMac:
If it wasn't for Paul (along with John, George and Ringo of course) I never would have become a musician.
Me too. People these days think he isn't 'relevant' and 'an antique.' I know people who are always mocking the Beatles, mainly Paul, but why? He's an idol of mine and in my case my biggest influence. It really agitates me when people mock Paul.
-
paul knows he's produced a tremendous amount of great work through the years. his own opinion on this might matter the most to him--why fret over ignorant misinformed negative folks with tin ears and shallow minds, who are lacking in heart and love, discernment and perception? why should he give a moment's thought or regard to the naysayers, when he himself knows the full depth and import of his accomplishments? also, there's plenty of appreciative external verification coming in from many outside sources almost constantly. don't worry about paul mc.--he's sitting pretty, as they say
and deserves it 
he is loved it's not all apathy, ignorance and scorn for macca far from it -
SusyLuvsPaul:
paul knows he's produced a tremendous amount of great work through the years. his own opinion on this might matter the most to him--why fret over ignorant misinformed negative folks with tin ears and shallow minds, who are lacking in heart and love, discernment and perception? why should he give a moment's thought or regard to the naysayers, when he himself knows the full depth and import of his accomplishments? also, there's plenty of external verification coming in from many outside sources almost constantly. don't worry about paul mc.--he's sitting pretty, as they say
and deserves it he is loved it's not all apathy, ignorance and scorn for macca far from it im glad you feel that way susy and couldnt agree more that he has 'produced a tremendous amount of great work through the years'. however it is also obvious that you do not live in the 'UK' were believe it or not 'paul' does not hold the respect or postion that his music deserves. paul [i think] is still based in the UK and it must get right up his nose that his solo work is seen as' inferior ' by so many on these isles. i dont know if its a 'lennon' thing or not,but he is hailed as some kind of 'demigod' whilst paul was the 'cute' sideman who grew old and 'soft'. i think even 'noel gallagher'[who i cant stand by the way] said a few years back ......... 'it is strange that the british people have this perception of paul.up untill lennons death mccartney was held in very high regard'. personally i blame the smart arsed critics and freaks however i do believe paul has not done himself any favours in recent years after admirably sticking to his muse for the decades before that.!
-
he got used to that a long time ago, his long career has had so many ups and downs...he knows how to handle celebrity and fame issues of all kinds, bless him. he's probably learned to focus more on the good than the bad. he's certainly brilliant enough to
-
I think there is actually a lot of recognition out there, but Paul himself has caused some of the reasons for some people to not realising just how much great stuff he has out there, and how good it is. Part of it is population dynamics I think. The baby boomers knew him as a Beatle, they will always think of him how they first knew him. The boomers still drive the economy and influence what gets produced, listened to etc. Hence the great sales of Beatles remasters and video game... Another big factor in the lack of recognition/familiarity with all his work is that his "branding" is a mish-mash. He's multi-talented, done so many different things. Mostly he concentrates on music, and has stated that's his "real" career, so we wouldn't expect people to recognise him as a poet, artist, author vary much. So considering just his music career, even there it's marketting madness. We have: Beatles - primitive to semi-sophisticated, many rockers, innocent themes mostly, except for drug references wich at the time may have been a bit obscure, some soft ballads, no falsetto. Wings - different style on purpose from the Beatles to prove he could do it and becuase of his sentiments about the group and the break-up mess. He didn't do the friendly smile so much while singing, stopped the head-shaing, instead tossing back long hair, strutting about, more "hard and cool." He almost seemed like a different person on stage. I'm not sure if that persona was as natural to him as how he acted in the Beatles. Maybe it was for that time in his life. The music itself was a different style, modern rock, not "old fashioned flavour" left to it. Solo - in eighties, tended to be ballads, even some falsetto. I happen to like it all, and think there was some very impressive stuff there. It was a lost period in his life, I don't think he was in the mood for a while to do a lot of raunchy or hard rocking stuff. He had young kids, had the stuffing kicked out of him with the shock of jail and then of course John's death confirmed his desire to not tour for almost a decade. Those were my rocking highschool years, and he seemed almost invisible, but he actually produced a lot of stuff which I did hear a lot on the radio. However, I often didn't know he wrote/sang it! It didn't sound like the Beatles, didn't sound like Wings. Busy people don't stop to analyse the tunes they're doing homework to unless there's a reason, like ads for a concert. I don't remember any ads for his albums, maybe there were some. I was probably more clued out than some people but my point is the fans of his first two groups weren't hearing what they expected, so some of that audience stopped paying attention, I'm sure some new fan of that style arose. The classical work - obviously, very different again. I love most of it, not sure about the first one on Standing stone, the discordant one. Reviews on amaon are mixed, some love it, some hate it for breaking the rules, some finding genius in it because he broke the rules. It remains to be seen how history sees it. Ecce CM was recognised with the Brit award, so it' s not like it's been ignored in the industry at all - it's just not generally known because of that marketing/branding problem. I was surprised myself to find out he'd done such work. My brother wouldn't believe it at first, had to show him the DVD case. Current solo - more sophistcated, fully modern, classical influence on a lot of it. There are a lot of poeple young and old who love it and recognise it's worth. However, it takes longer for young people to figure out that such an "old" guy can make really cool music for people their age. I think what people are seeing happen in England and probably Europe too is the same thing that happens everywhere with any local artist. You have to sell stuff away from home, it's then "exotic." He lives there so he's not as "special" as when he's a visitor somewhere else. It's just the normal way of things. Papers there focus a lot on gossip, activism, controversy, whatever will be senstional and sell papers. People get used to hearing his name not associated with fun music, and sort of forget that part. The Beatles were partly so esteemed because they pushed the limits, developed the genre further. I' m not sure Wings did that. By then there were many other artists who had followed up on early groups like the Beatles. Wings had more competition in the genre Paul helped create in the Beatles, and declining numbers of young people because of the boomer thing ending. So even though the music was just as good, it didn't seem as big, even though he easily got just as huge live audiences, mix of Beatles and new fans. That leaves people to place the genius part on the Beatles, and argue about the classical material if they realise he's done it, and when they realise his whole body of work, hopefully they'll see it there too.
-
rich n:
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.
The reviews of recent McCartney recordings (CHAOS, MAF EA) have been very good and you have to remember he also got good reviews from records like "Tug of War", "Flaming Pie'" and "Flowers". McCartney got slammed and rightfully so for awful records like "Pipes of Peace', "Press to Play" and "McCartney II". This being said, McCartney will never be totally aprreciated by the general public for anything outside of his career with the Beatles which is a shame.
-
OK, here is another example of McCartney work not being appreciated. Rolling Stone has a list of the top 100 albums of the decade and CHAOS did not make the list. This list was compiled by critics, muscians etc. It is strange to me how a record like CHAOS can be voted for record of the year by the Grammy nominations but can't make the top 100 of this decade.
-
For me Paul's solo albums have generally been under rated because-to borrow and Elvis Costello song title-he is a man out of time. Lots of critics blamed him for the break up of The Beatles and then went on dismiss his solo records as lightweight nonsense. I think there has always been musical snobbery from critics-some sort of tuneless racket get's praised as being brave and experimental whereas melodic tunes are dismissed as meaningless pop. There's also the image thing-John was regarded as a serious artist, making political statements while Paul was accused of wasting his talent. McCartney also made the mistake of selling too many records! Recently though I think the tide is turning-Paul's recent records have-rightly-been praised and if they aren't particularly well known it's probably Paul's fault for not playing many new songs on tour. Imagine if Paul had written...Imagine! I bet he would have been slated by the critics for writing a naive, sentimental song and if John had written Ebony & Ivory the expert critics would have praised him for tackling race relations in a song!
-
streetlegal:
For me Paul's solo albums have generally been under rated because-to borrow and Elvis Costello song title-he is a man out of time. Lots of critics blamed him for the break up of The Beatles and then went on dismiss his solo records as lightweight nonsense. I think there has always been musical snobbery from critics-some sort of tuneless racket get's praised as being brave and experimental whereas melodic tunes are dismissed as meaningless pop. There's also the image thing-John was regarded as a serious artist, making political statements while Paul was accused of wasting his talent. McCartney also made the mistake of selling too many records! Recently though I think the tide is turning-Paul's recent records have-rightly-been praised and if they aren't particularly well known it's probably Paul's fault for not playing many new songs on tour. Imagine if Paul had written...Imagine! I bet he would have been slated by the critics for writing a naive, sentimental song and if John had written Ebony & Ivory the expert critics would have praised him for tackling race relations in a song!
I agree Paul's more sentimental music seems to be slaughtered but John's slushy music is forgiven.If Paul had written Beautiful Boy or Goodnight he would be mercilessly criticised.Also if he writes anything surreal or eccentric he gets criticised for it being silly and daft, whereas John is lauded for it.I'm not trying to denegrate John's music but i'm trying to balance out the picture.There's so much more to Paul than the Beatles,i just wish the world would wake up to the fact.
-
Absolutely agree, John was brilliant but-as you say-he could write sentimental songs without being slated by the critics whereas Paul always gets criticised for his ballads. I don't take many critics seriously-prefer to take notice of other musicians. Bob Dylan gave an interview a while back and he mentioned that he regarded Paul as an awesome musician. I think Bob's opinion is worth more than any music journalist! If anyone says Paul is just a MOR artist who has written nothing of substance since Band On The Run, I'd get them to listen to Chaos...Memory Almost Full and Electric Arguments. Those are not exactly safe, conservative MOR albums.
