Defense Case 1- Press to Play
-
I personally love every Macca album. I have never found more then two substandard songs I don't like on an album, and even their are better then most artists songs. So I am going to start a series on defending some of Paul's most hated works. Take note, these albums may have been loved before and hated now or loved now and hated then. Or maybe the critics loved it but the public didn't. I am covering any album that has had major criticisms leveled against it. Press to Play is great. One of the criticisms of it is that the writing is underdone and sloppy. I dare anyone here to find a Beatles song from their first three, well loved albums, that were more complex then Press to Play. The only reason people hate on it is because Paul was always supposed to be artsy, apparently, and any good old fashioned pop was out of bounds. Let's look at his songwriting from almost every other album, and compare it to Michael Jackson. Very few of Mj's songs are anywhere near as complex. Yet he hs almost as much Golf and Platinum certs. as Paul. Paul did good, light, pop music, and the world didn't expect that from him, and they mistook surprise for hate. The overproduction is fine. That's just how they did it in that era. And I don't mind the production. It was very slick and grand, which is fine. It definitely wasn't sloppy. People who claim it was sterile clearly don't know the time Paul spends in every song doing instruments, singing, laying down track after track, and PTP had an EXTREMELY long production time. Not sterile. Just different. And what is wrong with that. Any thoughts?
-
Well said. As I mentioned before, I think it all depends on which version people have.
-
I found this album refreshing after the previous two. It was great to see him stretching his boundaries and experimenting. I think this album sounds more unified than FITD.
-
jgm0228:
I personally love every Macca album. I have never found more then two substandard songs I don't like on an album, and even their are better then most artists songs. So I am going to start a series on defending some of Paul's most hated works. Take note, these albums may have been loved before and hated now or loved now and hated then. Or maybe the critics loved it but the public didn't. I am covering any album that has had major criticisms leveled against it. Press to Play is great. One of the criticisms of it is that the writing is underdone and sloppy. I dare anyone here to find a Beatles song from their first three, well loved albums, that were more complex then Press to Play. The only reason people hate on it is because Paul was always supposed to be artsy, apparently, and any good old fashioned pop was out of bounds. Let's look at his songwriting from almost every other album, and compare it to Michael Jackson. Very few of Mj's songs are anywhere near as complex. Yet he hs almost as much Golf and Platinum certs. as Paul. Paul did good, light, pop music, and the world didn't expect that from him, and they mistook surprise for hate. The overproduction is fine. That's just how they did it in that era. And I don't mind the production. It was very slick and grand, which is fine. It definitely wasn't sloppy. People who claim it was sterile clearly don't know the time Paul spends in every song doing instruments, singing, laying down track after track, and PTP had an EXTREMELY long production time. Not sterile. Just different. And what is wrong with that. Any thoughts?
I see your point and partly agree. The sound is typical of mid-'80 and the album was interesting. Paul was first to say that he did not find it successful. There's a couple of interviews included in my book "Paul McCartney: Recording Sessions (1969-2013)" where some collaborators of Paul recall what feelings he had about the album. Especially producer Richard Niles has an interesting anecdote about it.
-
Wyrdskein:
Well said. As I mentioned before, I think it all depends on which version people have.
What do you mean, which version?
-
My one defense of this album is that the material is stronger than the lousy production (or arrangements?) allowed you to hear
-
Squid:
Wyrdskein:
Well said. As I mentioned before, I think it all depends on which version people have.
What do you mean, which version?
I recently bought a CD version, and was surprised at the sound - it seemed to have the heart ripped out of it. I was used to a different version. Compare this
to the version released on the first CD edition, which has the bad 80s production that people talk about. -
Remembering the first time I bought this album and listening to it around 1990 The first track was there and I thought I bought the wrong cassette for another singer! the music was not Paul, the production was not Paul, and most important ... his voice is not the same!!!! track after track I recognized his voice, but just was not Paul McCartney album. I truely was shocked and never understood why he did it at that time I listened more and more trying to get something I like, even I thought that it must be my ears that might have the problem! some of the tunes grew in me later on like and I like it now like "Footprints" and "Press" "only Love remains"but man! this was Paul McCartney... these songs are nothing for a legend like him! and the other tracks were making me angry and sad. I think Paul was lucky that the album was in top10. but we should always remember that the history and previous records always effects the sales of new release of any artist. you can see that after this album paul's selling records begin to fade no matter how good it is. like "Flowers in the dirt" did not chart well in USA even though it was a very strong come back album. years ago (and now) I know that it was the worst period in his solo career (starting from POP) maybe because the music scene of the 80's was so different and he felt lost in it and didnt know which direction is the best. sorry "Press" fans but i consider this album the worse in Paul McCartney's efforts.
-
Wyrdskein:
Squid:
Wyrdskein:
Well said. As I mentioned before, I think it all depends on which version people have.
What do you mean, which version?
I recently bought a CD version, and was surprised at the sound - it seemed to have the heart ripped out of it. I was used to a different version. Compare this
to the version released on the first CD edition, which has the bad 80s production that people talk about.All the singles had radically different mixes - Press, Pretty Little Head and Only Love Remains. Angry also had a very different mix for one of the 12" singles. But the actual Press to Play album proper only had one variation - on the very 1st pressings the mix you linked to at youtube was on the album - it was later swapped with the 10" single mix featuring the long outro.
-
favoritething:
I found this album refreshing after the previous two. It was great to see him stretching his boundaries and experimenting. I think this album sounds more unified than FITD.
I agree. I give Paul credit for trying to sound different with PTP even though it doesnt always work. Starting with Flowers, Paul's style changed and he entered his neo-classic Beatles phase - writing songs in the same style as the Beatles.
-
I think is a bad album, worst than PoP. Footprints is pretty, Only love remains sounds good... but it was done without any big effort. I think he recorded Once Upon A Long Ago in those sessions, right?
-
Squid:
Wyrdskein:
Squid:
Wyrdskein:
Well said. As I mentioned before, I think it all depends on which version people have.
What do you mean, which version?
I recently bought a CD version, and was surprised at the sound - it seemed to have the heart ripped out of it. I was used to a different version. Compare this
to the version released on the first CD edition, which has the bad 80s production that people talk about.All the singles had radically different mixes - Press, Pretty Little Head and Only Love Remains. Angry also had a very different mix for one of the 12" singles. But the actual Press to Play album proper only had one variation - on the very 1st pressings the mix you linked to at youtube was on the album - it was later swapped with the 10" single mix featuring the long outro.
It's amazing how much difference it makes, but I'm sure the CD version I have is different on several songs to the cassette version I owned in the late 80s. It's as if all the bass has been removed and they tried to make it a light pop album. I'm still unsure which version is which.
-
So, your suggesting that PTP is good because the songs are a bit more complex than stuff he was writing when he was 22? Or because it's less awful than the bulk of Michael Jackson's songwriting? Wow, could you set the bar any lower? But in fact nothing on PTP has anything remotely like the verve or charm of All My Loving or the raw, sexual energy of I Saw Her Standing There, so it doesn't even pass that standard. The album has a few interesting moments (even Paul's weakest albums have brief flashes of brilliance), but mostly it's just not very good.
-
Bruce M.:
So, your suggesting that PTP is good because the songs are a bit more complex than stuff he was writing when he was 22? Or because it's less awful than the bulk of Michael Jackson's songwriting? Wow, could you set the bar any lower? But in fact nothing on PTP has anything remotely like the verve or charm of All My Loving or the raw, sexual energy of I Saw Her Standing There, so it doesn't even pass that standard. The album has a few interesting moments (even Paul's weakest albums have brief flashes of brilliance), but mostly it's just not very good.
In my opinion it's brilliant. It's all subjective after all.
-
Wyrdskein:
Squid:
Wyrdskein:
Squid:
Wyrdskein:
Well said. As I mentioned before, I think it all depends on which version people have.
What do you mean, which version?
I recently bought a CD version, and was surprised at the sound - it seemed to have the heart ripped out of it. I was used to a different version. Compare this
to the version released on the first CD edition, which has the bad 80s production that people talk about.All the singles had radically different mixes - Press, Pretty Little Head and Only Love Remains. Angry also had a very different mix for one of the 12" singles. But the actual Press to Play album proper only had one variation - on the very 1st pressings the mix you linked to at youtube was on the album - it was later swapped with the 10" single mix featuring the long outro.
It's amazing how much difference it makes, but I'm sure the CD version I have is different on several songs to the cassette version I owned in the late 80s. It's as if all the bass has been removed and they tried to make it a light pop album. I'm still unsure which version is which.
I don't really know what you could be referring to. The variation that Squid mentioned is the only variation in the album itself. The basic album has the 10 songs ending with "However Absurd" and the original CD added the three bonus tracks Write Away, It's Not True (remix), and Tough On A Tightrope. The 1993 CD reissue added two additional bonus tracks: Spies Like Us, and Press (dub mix). The original LP had that one variation in the mix of "Press," as Squid said. Looking up the cassette version, the only thing I could find is that it was manufactured with what was called XDR (eXtended Dynamic Range), a process used on some cassettes in the eighties. According to Wikipedia, XDR was "a process designed to provide higher quality audio on pre-recorded cassettes by checking the sound quality at all stages of the tape duplication process. In this way, the dynamic range of audio recorded on an XDR-duplicated cassette can be up to 13 decibels greater." In addition, it says that this process resulted in "clearer high frequencies, greater bass response, and less noise." Not sure if this is what you're talking about. It's unclear whether the bass response with XDR was just better than ordinary cassettes, or better than vinyl and CD too, which would seem like a stretch.
-
Wyrdskein:
Bruce M.:
So, your suggesting that PTP is good because the songs are a bit more complex than stuff he was writing when he was 22? Or because it's less awful than the bulk of Michael Jackson's songwriting? Wow, could you set the bar any lower? But in fact nothing on PTP has anything remotely like the verve or charm of All My Loving or the raw, sexual energy of I Saw Her Standing There, so it doesn't even pass that standard. The album has a few interesting moments (even Paul's weakest albums have brief flashes of brilliance), but mostly it's just not very good.
In my opinion it's brilliant. It's all subjective after all.
Yes, all subjective. The critic for the Chicago Tribune said at the time, "No doubt about it, this is McCartney's most rocking album in ages. Much of it's catchy, most of it's fun, and it's superior to McCartney's efforts of recent years." That was my view as well. It's true that most critics were ambivalent about the album, but on the other hand, most critics were ecstatic about Electric Arguments, and I know that Bruce has no use for that album whatsoever. So yes, we all have our own opinions, regardless of critical consensus.
-
Maybe we need a good remaster of the album. Not sure if this will happen though.
-
I love the fact that you are defending Paul's less popular and even criticised works. I find Press To Play to be a fine album. The issue was, it was overshadowed by Paul's major 80's hits Tug Of War and Flowers In The Dirt. I love the catchy pop vibe that for me, will never age. "Move Over Busker", "Stranglehold", and "Only Love Remains", and "Press" are stand out tracks for me, but every track is easy to listen to.
-
The album is good. I enjoy it immensely from time to time. Forget the production values mid/late 80s obviously, but such tracks as Stranglehold, Talk More Talk, Press, Good Times Coming, Pretty Little Head and Only Love Remains are all FAB.
-
I've been listening to this album quite a lot recently. I'm not sure why it failed so spectacularly in the charts, or why it's viewed with a certain amount of chagrin in retrospect. Song for song, it's not any stronger or weaker than most of Paul's better albums. Outstanding tracks are Stranglehold, Footprints, Only Love Remains, Press, However Absurd. That's half the album right there. Middling tracks are Good Times Coming/Feel the Sun and Angry. There are a couple of Paul's love 'em/hate 'em experimental numbers - Talk More Talk and Pretty Little Head. That leaves only Move Over Busker as the only truly excruciating song, and even that's not too bad. When we get to the bonus tracks, they're all good and it's a real treat to have them on the CD. Production-wise the album isn't even very typical of its time. It's not hugely over-produced; in fact, Footprints and Only Love Remains are understated; the only overproduced number is However Absurd, but that gels with the song so it's not a problem. It sounds 80s, yes, but it doesn't have the sterile, corporate edge that most mid-80s albums by major artists seemed to have. The bass is a little weak, and the drum sound is in your face, but the melodies are intact. I think there were three serious mistakes made with this album. First was the confusion over which version of Press was the lead single - I do remember that my copy of the album had some sort of dub mix, apparently limited to the first 45000 copies pressed. Subsequent pressings featured the full version taken from the 10" single. There were so many remixes floating around at this time that the whole release and publicity mechanism seemed confused and stalled. The second major error was the choice of Pretty Little Head as the second single. This didn't chart, as this-then 15 year-old Paul fan could have told him it wouldn't. Perhaps Paul was hoping the song would key into a mid-80s dance vibe. No chance. Last was the emergency remix of Only Love Remains for the single release, which took a starkly beautiful song and sweetened it up for an audience that had already turned its back on the album. The 80s have been in vogue for some time now, but albums like Press to Play remain to be rehabilitated; this tells me that such albums don't have the fallacies of the 80s attached to them; that they are reasonably timeless. Not perfect by any means, but detached from passing fashions. I think this is the whole point if Press to Play - it's an attempt by Paul to keep on doing what he was always doing, while remaining just current enough to be relevant. On those terms, and because of the songs, the album is a success.
