Paul's New Album-- "New"-- CONFIRMED
-
Where, oh WHERE does he get the energy?
-
lisalou7:
nobodytoldme:
It's out there! Deluxe edition and all.
In stores???
Always was going to be tomorrow in at least Germany and The Netherlands, with those who have bribe-skills on ... well now ;), but this was about the leak this morning. Unheard of in this day and age: a leak just 16 hours before street day, well done to the team! And it's a four-star album!
-
I noticed that the running time for the 12-track "regular" album is shown to be 46:11. When the two bonus tracks are added on the Deluxe version, the running time is shown to increase to 52:15, or about 6 minutes longer. BUT...the two additional songs are shown, respectively, to last 3:00 and 6:16, or a total of 9:16. What gives???? Shouldn't the running time of the Deluxe Edition be 55:27 minutes???? :
-
Beatles4Ever&Ever:
I noticed that the running time for the 12-track "regular" album is shown to be 46:11. When the two bonus tracks are added on the Deluxe version, the running time is shown to increase to 52:15, or about 6 minutes longer. BUT...the two additional songs are shown, respectively, to last 3:00 and 6:16, or a total of 9:16. What gives???? Shouldn't the running time of the Deluxe Edition be 55:27 minutes???? :
The hidden track is tagged on to the last song of each edition, so the 3:16 discrepancy is the hidden track Scared.
-
I think you have to take the hidden track time off the regular album as it is included on the 6 minute track at the end of the deluxe album. Might be wrong!
-
-
Looks like Simon Aboud (Mary's husband) is the director of the new Queenie Eye video from a tweet.. http://instagram.com/p/fS-IulDIxC/
-
cfergoid:
Beatles4Ever&Ever:
I noticed that the running time for the 12-track "regular" album is shown to be 46:11. When the two bonus tracks are added on the Deluxe version, the running time is shown to increase to 52:15, or about 6 minutes longer. BUT...the two additional songs are shown, respectively, to last 3:00 and 6:16, or a total of 9:16. What gives???? Shouldn't the running time of the Deluxe Edition be 55:27 minutes???? :
The hidden track is tagged on to the last song of each edition, so the 3:16 discrepancy is the hidden track Scared.
Thanks. I sorta' thought it might have something to do with that. I would think at this point, however, it's not so hidden anymore...in that just about everyone seems to know about it...its existence. Anyone heard it?? Giles, the producer, said it was just Paul and a piano, but just "made the hair on the back of his head stand up" it was so good. He didn't want to do anything else to the song, in the way of production enhancement.
-
OskarMcCartney:
Beatles4Ever&Ever:
OskarMcCartney:
Early Days is such an amazing song, I'm in love with it!
I want to be,...but the sample I've heard doesn't sound so good...the vocal is a bit croaky. Are you basing your feelings on the words...or just what is it about the song that you love? (I'm thinking it may be too stripped down by Ethan Johns.) Thoughts???? :
Well you have to hear the whole song to appreciate it I think, the best part is the refrain! It has a really beautiful melody. It's stripped down in the beggining but towards the middle more instruments come in, I agree about Pauls voice being croaky but the great song makes up for it I think!
I think you're correct on that. Most comments by music critics...that I have read,..cite that song as being one of Paul's best on the album...precisely because of (or maybe in spite of) the vocal. It's Paul being real and honest about what he's saying and his vocal gives it more power....sort of the way they praise Dylan for being honest about his voice and not trying to make it sound 40 years younger.
-
Yup, this is the one. He delivered once again. Side B slaughters side A for me though.
-
So, which newspaper in Britain is more influential--or more widely read --The Telegraph or The Guardian? Anyone know? I ask because the review of Paul's "New" in The Telegraph is glowing....5 out of 5. The reviewer loves it. The one in The Guardian is less so, 3 out of 5 stars. The reviewer says Paul needs someone to edit him, etc., all the usual crap that some people just write down automatically without listening to anything. It's not totally negative, but goes all the way back to 'mentioning Teddy Boy' and how John hated/made fun of it, etc. What any of that has to do with "New" is a mystery. (It really was the comments by some readers of The Guardian, however, that astonished me. Many are absolute trash and very mean spirited. Paul is seemingly loved much more here in the states than in his home country. (When I was in Britain, I was astonished at how trashy many of the newspapers were; they were sort of like The Enquirer is here in America. Not what I had expected of the Brits!!!)
-
nobodytoldme:
Yup, this is the one. He delivered once again. Side B slaughters side A for me though.
Excellent. I've just heard Hosanna after saying I wouldn't!! Absolutely gorgeous, heart breaking even, the tape loops are stunning. Its Paul laid bare..
-
Trying to get Toto's "Rosanna" out of my head. Can't wait to hear "Hosannah."
-
audi:
Trying to get Toto's "Rosanna" out of my head. Can't wait to hear "Hosannah."
Didn't he date Rosanna for awhile?
-
For a very short while, while auditioning various dates to see if anything took. Or something like that. Wasn't very long before he settled on N.Shevell, for whom (according to Hello magazine) he wrote "Scared", he'd been afraid to say "I love you" even though he's had enough practice.
-
Beatles4Ever&Ever:
So, which newspaper in Britain is more influential--or more widely read --The Telegraph or The Guardian? Anyone know? I ask because the review of Paul's "New" in The Telegraph is glowing....5 out of 5. The reviewer loves it. The one in The Guardian is less so, 3 out of 5 stars. The reviewer says Paul needs someone to edit him, etc., all the usual crap that some people just write down automatically without listening to anything. It's not totally negative, but goes all the way back to 'mentioning Teddy Boy' and how John hated/made fun of it, etc. What any of that has to do with "New" is a mystery. (It really was the comments by some readers of The Guardian, however, that astonished me. Many are absolute trash and very mean spirited. Paul is seemingly loved much more here in the states than in his home country. (When I was in Britain, I was astonished at how trashy many of the newspapers were; they were sort of like The Enquirer is here in America. Not what I had expected of the Brits!!!)
In print, the Telegraph has about 550,000 subscribers, about double the paid subscribers of the Guardian. But online, the Guardian gets 4 million unique visitors a month, compared with 3 million for the Telegraph (which charges for content after a certain amount of views each month). The Guardian is more influential in hipster music circles, which is why that 3-star review hurts. It might have helped sell a few more albums in the UK, where it doesn't look like New will chart all that well, compared with the US and Canada. Gees, the Guardian review is such a cliched review. : : People say Paul is stuck in the past about the Beatles, well, some of these reviewers are too. If any of you get a chance, you should go over there (http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/oct/10/paul-mccartney-new-review) and support the positive comments (the ones you agree with of course!). That said: 5 stars from the Telegraph A- from Entertainment Weekly 8 out of 10 in Q Magazine 4 stars from Rolling Stone 7 out of 10 in NME (amazingly, since they typically hate him) 7 out of 10 in Uncut 7 out of 10 in Clash Magazine 3 stars from the Guardian (boo! hiss!) That's pretty damn good!! And lets face it, the last time the reviewers gave Paul uniformly positive praise was more than 3 decades ago.
-
Michelley:
Beatles4Ever&Ever:
So, which newspaper in Britain is more influential--or more widely read --The Telegraph or The Guardian? Anyone know? I ask because the review of Paul's "New" in The Telegraph is glowing....5 out of 5. The reviewer loves it. The one in The Guardian is less so, 3 out of 5 stars. The reviewer says Paul needs someone to edit him, etc., all the usual crap that some people just write down automatically without listening to anything. It's not totally negative, but goes all the way back to 'mentioning Teddy Boy' and how John hated/made fun of it, etc. What any of that has to do with "New" is a mystery. (It really was the comments by some readers of The Guardian, however, that astonished me. Many are absolute trash and very mean spirited. Paul is seemingly loved much more here in the states than in his home country. (When I was in Britain, I was astonished at how trashy many of the newspapers were; they were sort of like The Enquirer is here in America. Not what I had expected of the Brits!!!)
In print, the Telegraph has about 550,000 subscribers, about double the paid subscribers of the Guardian. But online, the Guardian gets 4 million unique visitors a month, compared with 3 million for the Telegraph (which charges for content after a certain amount of views each month). The Guardian is more influential in hipster music circles, which is why that 3-star review hurts. It might have helped sell a few more albums in the UK, where it doesn't look like New will chart all that well, compared with the US and Canada. Gees, the Guardian review is such a cliched review. : : People say Paul is stuck in the past about the Beatles, well, some of these reviewers are too. If any of you get a chance, you should go over there (http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/oct/10/paul-mccartney-new-review)) and support the positive comments (the ones you agree with of course!). That said: 5 stars from the Telegraph A- from Entertainment Weekly 8 out of 10 in Q Magazine 7 out of 10 in NME (amazingly, since they typically hate him) 7 out of 10 in Uncut 7 out of 10 in Clash Magazine. That's pretty damn good!! And lets face it, the last time the reviewers gave Paul uniformly positive praise was more than 3 decades ago.
Great round up Michelley. The Guardian is definitely more hipster and also left of centre. Its actually a good read and still free online. Saying that I thought this reveiw was very lazy and cliched. What Teddy Boy and the 1969 Get Back sessions had to do with New I don't know?? I got the feeling Alexis begrudgingly liked a lot of New but didn't want to let on. Actually The Telegraph review was pretty lazy as well with lots of references to the ex! Baffling.
-
Having listened to Paul's NEW album, I can say this is a masterpiece. A true highlight of his long and amazing career.
-
OKAY I broke down and decided to listen to Queenie Eye--I wanted to keep as much of "New" as a surprise till when the album is released. I must say, after only hearing it twice mind you, may be one of my favorite Paul songs since Flaming Pie. It has such a fresh sound to it! I really enjoy "New" (the song) as well, it has such a "Beatle" vibe to it. However "Queenie Eye" is outstanding both musically and lyrically. I can't wait till next tuesday!
-
Paul's starting to catch fire a bit on the iTunes chart: #133, up from about #150 this morning. I ventured out to a store that I thought might have an early copy, but no luck. They did have the vinyl LP of Electric Arguments, but I couldn't justify $30 without the bonus tracks. Never did get that deluxe CD!