Rolling Stone Top-100... Why No Paul?
-
KingMacca:
However, Paul got a gracious review from RS: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/paul-mccartney-launches-another-magical-mystery-tour-20121112
That's the one bone they've always thrown Paul's way: They criticize his songwriting and undervalue his albums but praise his live performance, as if that's the only thing he's been great at since the Beatles.
:
:
-
seventieslord:
As I'm sure most of you know, Rolling Stone magazine compiled a list of the top-100 artists of all-time. It's a good list overall that serves its purpose - it's not too heavy on any one era, genre, gender or race, and seems to take influence and cultural impact into account as much as how the music has stood up. It also isn't based solely on fame; there are a lot of "hipster" choices on there... like Talking Heads, for example. I consider myself an appreciator of all good music, and I own at least an introduction by 75 of these 100 artists (and in many cases, a lot more) The Beatles are #1, I recall Lennon is about #31, but I couldn't believe there was no room for Macca on this thing. If you want to call the Beatles one entity, and say all their solo work rolls into that #1 ranking, fine. But if we're breaking them all up and judging them individually, I can't fathom how John can be so incredibly high on the list and Macca not at all. John's peak solo output was as good as, or perhaps better than Paul's, but I don't see how he achieved in 8 albums what Paul has in 25. I saw on these threads not too long ago, someone mentioned that without the Beatles, Paul would have eventually made a name for himself and would have achieved something in the Billy Joel/Bruce Springsteen level of fame and acclaim. I think that's a good start for a bare minimum. This is a guy who's a top-5 singer ever, a virtuoso musician and probably the best writer of melodies in the last 50 years (I know there were a few epic standards writers before him). Is this fallout of him being considered the "lightweight" of the core Beatles immediately following the breakup? Has he really not shaken that reputation yet? I look at someone like Elvis Costello, who made the list (I forget how high). I respect him greatly, but can anyone say his impact on music and his volume of great songs is anywhere near Paul's, really? They worked together in the 80s; does anyone think it was Paul going "OMG, I can't believe I'm working with Elvis Costello!!!" ? I doubt it.
I never read lists of greatest this or that...or polls or whatever....'cause they're just put together to sell a magazine or whatever. Aside from that, we all know where certain artists belong and how important they were. The Beatles, and each member, will always be at the top, no matter the poll or the list of greatest this or that. The lists are meant to stir up controversy. That's the point. Leave The Beatles or one of them off, and it makes for chatter and letters to the editor. Just leave them alone; ignore them. IMO.
-
I'm asking this question yet again. If it's documented and you're acknowledged as the greatest songwriter IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF POPULAR MUSIC, if you've been nominated as the greatest singer songwriter OF THE MILLENIUM not once but twice, if you wrote THE BIGGEST HIT THE BEATLES EVER HAD, if you wrote THE MOST COVERED SONG IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF POPULAR MUSIC, who could possibly be higher than that? Right now today McCartney is acknowledged as the most famous most successful rock star on planet Earth! So once again, who and how can anyone be higher than that? Please tell me how, because to me the only way anyone could would be to totally ignore the documented facts, and anyone who does that doesn't have any credibility anyway!
-
left hand man:
I'm asking this question yet again. If it's documented and you're acknowledged as the greatest songwriter IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF POPULAR MUSIC, if you've been nominated as the greatest singer songwriter OF THE MILLENIUM not once but twice, if you wrote THE BIGGEST HIT THE BEATLES EVER HAD, if you wrote THE MOST COVERED SONG IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF POPULAR MUSIC, who could possibly be higher than that? Right now today McCartney is acknowledged as the most famous most successful rock star on planet Earth! So once again, who and how can anyone be higher than that? Please tell me how, because to me the only way anyone could would be to totally ignore the documented facts, and anyone who does that doesn't have any credibility anyway!
Darlin' you're preaching to the choir!
-
Michelley:
yankeefan7:
Michelley:
That is an old list. It came out in 2008 or so. Why isn't Paul on it? Because Rolling Stone's editor Jann Wenner had/has a massive fanboy crush on John Lennon. Wenner felt it was his duty to inflate John's solo work and diminish Paul's. I remember being irritated by that Rolling Stone list in 2008. Since then, I've learned the lengths to which Jann Wenner went to harm Paul's reputation. When Paul's first solo album came out, the Rolling Stone reviewer at the time gave it a positive review. Jann Wenner intervened and actually pressured the reviewer to rewrite it and make it a negative review. That's how much of a Lennon fanboy Wenner was. Appalling behavior that harmed Paul's reputation for years. The thing is: It's been fun to watch Rolling Stone eat crow lately. For example Rolling Stone gave Ram a terrible review when that album first came out. But when Paul reissued Ram a year ago -- now that the album is widely regarded as Paul's masterpiece and got glowing reviews -- Rolling Stone hilariously gave the reissue 4.5 stars. Paul must have felt good about that. In short: Rolling Stone magazine is a joke. So I wouldn't lose any sleep over any of its idiotic lists. After all, this is the magazine that put Mick Jagger's horrible Superheavy album on its list of the top 50 albums of 2011.
Why? Because Jann Wenner also has a crush on Mick Jagger -- not because the album was any good. If John Lennon belongs on any such list, then so does Paul. But it's taken Paul most of his solo career to get the appreciation he deserves for his best albums.
Good points but you have to admit RS has given McCartney good reviews for his records the last 10-20 years. RS has also been very complimentary about McCartney's live performances..
Actually Rolling Stone hasn't been particularly generous with its reviews of Paul's recent albums of original songs. RS hasn't given 4 stars to a single one of Paul's recent albums put out under his own name. Not one. This is a magazine that gave 4 stars to that atrocious Mick Jagger Superheavy album and yet didn't give 4 stars to Chaos and Creation????? RS gave Memory Almost Full 3.5 stars. Chaos got 3 stars. You know what recent album RS gave 4 stars to? Paul's covers album: Run Devil Run. That's a backhanded compliment if ever I've seen one: It's basically saying "see, his best album is him singing someone else's songs." Don't get me wrong: I love Run Devil Run. But both Rolling Stone and that blowhard critic Robert Christgau gave the highest ratings they'd ever given to one of Paul's albums to Run Devil Run. Don't tell me that wasn't a purposeful slight. It was. Jann Wenner and Christgau are friends and both worship Lennon. And if you go to the RS page that lists the magazine's supposedly current ratings of Paul's albums (http://www.rollingstone.com/music/artists/paul-mccartney/albumguide),,) this pathetic excuse for a magazine hasn't even updated its ratings of Paul's early albums. Rolling Stone still lists Ram as 3 stars even though its most recent review gave the Ram reissue 4.5 stars. It's still listing McCartney II as 2 stars even though its most recent review gave the McCartney II reissue 3 stars. It still lists McCartney as 2.5 stars even though the magazine's most recent review gave the McCartney reissue 3.5 stars. So it's STILL lowballing Macca as a songwriter and a solo artist -- and has done so for 40 ****ing years. It's new music sites like Pitchfork and Allmusic and The Quietus and the AV Club that have led the way in rethinking Paul's solo work. NOT Rolling Stone. Oh, and guess which recent solo album of Paul's that Rolling Stone did give 4 stars to: Electric Arguments. So it gave 4 stars to an album that it doesn't even list under Paul's name (just under "The Fireman") and it doesn't even list the album on its page about McCartney's solo work. Check the list --:http://www.rollingstone.com/music/artists/paul-mccartney/albumguide -- Electric Arguments is not there. But, yes, I'll grant you that Rolling Stone has thrown Paul a bone by praising his live performances. They've just undercut him as a songwriter since he left the Beatles. Edited to add: Squid's point about John and Paul being used in the culture wars is spot on. This all really ticks me off. Obviously.
CHAOS did not get 3 stars, it got 4. (See review below). Note** The stars did not print out when I copied the review but it is easy enough to google if you want to check me. Paul McCartney Chaos and Creation in the Backyard Rolling Stone: Tweet Comment7 By Anthony DeCurtis September 22, 2005 The premise of Paul McCartney working with Nigel Godrich was clear from the start. McCartney wanted a producer who appreciated his storied past but at the same time believed that, at sixty-three, he has a vital future. For his part, Godrich ? who is best-known for his work with Radiohead and Beck ? had expressed interest in collaborating with an established artist whose reputation extended further back than the Nineties. A win-win, right? Right. Chaos and Creation in the Backyard is the freshest-sounding McCartney album in years. It is as spare, in its way, as Driving Rain (2001), his most recent studio effort, but it's more daring, more assured and more surprising. For starters, Driving Rain was a band album, while this is a genuine solo album in that McCartney plays nearly all the instruments on it ? four of the album's thirteen tracks credit no other musicians. It's an approach that recalls McCartney, the homemade 1970 release that launched the singer's post-Beatles career. And as on that record, the tingling sense of a new beginning is palpable. Though it's clearly the product of a true partnership between the artist and his producer, Chaos is instantly recognizable as a McCartney album. For one thing, that voice is front and center, as wistful and full of yearning as ever, effortlessly lending these songs a rich sense of emotional conviction. And that grounding frees Godrich to roughen up McCartney's innate melodic smoothness. "Jenny Wren" is an acoustic ballad in the manner of "Mother Nature's Son." But a solo on duduk ? a haunting, hollow-sounding Armenian woodwind ? transports the song into an unsettled, dreamlike realm and darkens its mood. Similarly, the string arrangements that permeate the album rigorously avoid the romantic lushness typical of McCartney in the past. Instead, they slither in and out of the mix, providing eerie atmospherics to songs like "Riding to Vanity Fair." Instruments such as melodica, harmonium, harpsichord and spinet introduce distinctly non-rock elements into McCartney's sound and contribute to an overall feel of delicate, stately surrealism. All of the above means, alas, that, with a couple of exceptions, Chaos doesn't rock ? its most significant drawback. (When McCartney tears off a guitar solo on "Promise to You Girl," the effect is jolting.) But without feeling showy, Chaos seduces the listener into a playful world of musical ideas that shimmer and disappear. The sound bears a complex relationship to the album's theme, an autumnal assessment of the things that fade and the things that last. What fades are the enervating distractions of daily life, every ego-charged detail that seems critical at the moment but that causes us to lose "sight of life day by day." And, for McCartney, of course, what lasts is love ? the engine of the creation mentioned in the title, the ultimate weapon against chaos. This is not the silly love of "Silly Love Songs." It's the challenge of one of his most famous lyrics: "And in the end, the love you take/Is equal to the love you make." It's a call to a better self, in other words, and a promise that, as he sings in "Anyway," this album's closing track, "If a love is strong enough, it may never end." Driving Rain is a 4 star review. (See below) http://www.rollingstone.com/assets/images/album_review/50b9a975f985cabd5bbe130204daaef1fb4b5afb.jpg Paul McCartney Driving Rain Rolling Stone: star rating Community: star rating Tweet Comment0 By Greg Kot October 30, 2001 "Not that this should come as a shock ? though after all these years it often goes unnoticed or taken for granted ? but Paul McCartney is one kick-ass bass player. A listener could live inside the voluptuous notes he so effortlessly threads through Driving Rain, his first album of new rock songs in four years. His genius on the instrument often has been enough to atone for many of his lesser post-Beatles compositions (no matter what one thinks of "Silly Love Songs," the bass line by itself practically justifies that ditty's existence). Driving Rain exploits this virtue to the fullest with fuss-free arrangements that magnify the interplay of a decent little four-piece rock & roll band comprising three relative unknowns and one living legend. McCartney is one legend with a penchant for breeziness, and many of his lesser solo discs traffic in mere pleasantness. This album isn't one of those, though it does contain a handful of tracks that sound tossed off rather than finely tuned: "Tiny Bubble" floats but never arrives at its destination; "Spinning on an Axis" drifts lazily; and "Heather" suggests a warm-up exercise for the band rather than an actual song. Fortunately, McCartney has embraced the small-combo spirit that made Run Devil Run, his 1999 album of rock & roll covers, such a triumph. Back then, McCartney was deep in mourning for his wife, Linda, and he returned to the music of his youth with almost desperate purpose. The best of his new tunes revisit that emotional terrain, giving "Lonely Road" a bite that becomes a frenzied growl by song's end. "There Must Have Been Magic" looks back in poignant reverie, while "From a Lover to a Friend" looks ahead with hymnlike wonder tempered by anxiety. On each of these tunes, plus the snappy if slight "Driving Rain," the country-flavored "Your Way" and the ten-minute rave-up "Rinse the Raindrops," McCartney's bass does the steering. Four-string melodies rise up as a counterpoint to his still-pliant vocals, and the never-ending McCartney groove, well, it isn't silly at all."
-
On Rolling Stones' album guide page for Paul, it shows only 3 stars for both Chaos and for Driving Rain. http://www.rollingstone.com/music/artists/paul-mccartney/albumguide That's great if the reviewers gave both albums 4 stars but that's not what RS's own Web site shows for Paul's albums.
-
Michelley:
On Rolling Stones' album guide page for Paul, it shows only 3 stars for both Chaos and for Driving Rain. http://www.rollingstone.com/music/artists/paul-mccartney/albumguide That's great if the reviewers gave both albums 4 stars but that's not what RS's own Web site shows for Paul's albums.
That is strange why there is a different rating. I also like to actually read the reviews and get a better idea what they think of record (good or bad). FITD was another 4 star review with mostly positive comments. By Anthony DeCurtis June 29, 1989 Flowers in the dirt were, of course, one of the most compelling anti-Sixties images of the punk movement: "We are the flowers in your dustbin/We are the poison in your human machine," Johnny Rotten spat out on the Sex Pistols' incendiary "God Save the Queen." The harshness of the image makes it the sort of thing you would never expect to find gracing a song by the usually genial Paul McCartney ? let alone serving as the title of his album. But McCartney set out to hone his edge on Flowers in the Dirt, and he succeeds to a significant degree. Part of the effort involved writing songs with punk veteran Elvis Costello, four of which turn up on this record. It should come as no surprise that the lines in question ? "She sprinkles flowers in the dirt/That's when a thrill becomes a hurt" ? occur in one of those collaborations, the spiritual-sounding but unsentimental "That Day Is Done." The McCartney-Costello partnership works best on the brashly assertive "My Brave Face," which opens Flowers and provides its first single. With bracing production support from Mitchell Froom and Neil Dorfsman, McCartney starts the song out on a characteristically upbeat note, exclaiming, "I've been hitting the town/And it didn't hit back." Intriguingly, a bridge intrudes after the second verse, telling of a lingering, painful breakup in the singer's relationship. When the chorus kicks in, propelling the song in an utterly new direction, McCartney wails in his best rock & roll voice, "Now that I'm alone again/I can't stop breaking down again." The innovative arrangement and the intermingling of optimism and emotional desperation clearly signal that two master songwriters are at work, drawing on their complementary strengths and operating at the peak of their powers. The duo also team up to telling effect on "You Want Her Too," a caustic thematic update of one of McCartney's earlier superstar collaborations, "The Girl Is Mine," with Michael Jackson. As McCartney and Costello trade off lines, McCartney's ingratiating sweetness ("I've loved her ohhhh soooo l-o-o-ng") finds acerbic ? and amusing ? counterpoint in Costello's bitter, nasal retorts ("So why don't you come right out and say it, stupid?"). This dueling recalls the charm of McCartney and Lennon's exchanges on "Getting Better," from Sgt. Pepper. But the virtues of Flowers in the Dirt are not at all limited to Costello's contributions. On "Rough Ride," which is built upon a simple but insinuatingly funky guitar riff, McCartney invents a sexy drawl to explore the seldom-used but effective lower end of his vocal register. He also abandons the cloying literalness typical of his lyrics to fashion a suggestive little tale about "a rough ride to heaven." Similarly, on "We Got Married" McCartney employs a terse, telegraphic lyric style and a disturbingly urgent melody to complicate what might otherwise have been yet another of his ditties of domestic bliss. While avoiding cynicism, he hints, for once, that love may not be all you need: "Just as well love was all we ever wanted/It was all we ever had." (Completists should also seek out the single version of "My Brave Face," which, on its flip side, contains "Flying to My Home," an appealingly ragged guitar rocker not included on the album.) Flowers in the Dirt, however, is hardly an unmitigated triumph. Despite its right-minded dedication to rain-forest activist Chico Mendes, who was murdered last year in Brazil, the tarted-up reggae track "How Many People" never finds its groove. The Paulie ballads "Distractions" and "Motor of Love" meander, together, for nearly eleven minutes to no purposeful end. "This One," likewise, extends its cute, lyrical conceit for too long and winds up taxing the listener's patience. Those soft spots weaken but fail to undermine Flowers in the Dirt's essential force. McCartney comes alive on this album, and if he hits the road, as rumored, this fall, he will have a half dozen or so new tunes that can ably hold their own alongside his standing repertoire. In the case of one of the finest songwriters in the history of rock, that's no mean accomplishment. RS gave Run Devil Run a 3.5 review but if you read the actually review it sounds like it should have a higher rating. Note the positive comment about the three McCartney original songs on the record. Paul McCartney Run Devil Run Rolling Stone: star rating Community: star rating Tweet Comment0 By David Wild October 28, 1999 Some of the greatest rock rock concerts I ever witnessed were Paul McCartney sound checks. Few touring artists get loose like the former Fab, who warms up for his slick stadium and arena shows with long sets of rock and R&B standards ? material that recaptures some of the Beatles' Hamburg-club-era roughness. Over the years, McCartney has repeatedly revisited his musical roots (perhaps most notably on his Choba B CCP act of musical glasnost). Now, in the wake of personal tragedy, having lost the love of his life, McCartney seems to have found some solace in his earliest passions. The resulting album is a vivid reminder of McCartney's massive natural charm and innate musicality. It's impossible not to be affected by the intimate way in which he invests himself in these primal songs of loss and love, especially "No Other Baby," a minor hit for Chad and Jeremy, and Ricky Nelson's "Lonesome Town." McCartney also successfully tackles two Elvis gems, "All Shook Up" and "I Got Stung." This is timeless teen music performed with youthful abandon but with added adult resonance. Other offerings don't require any context whatsoever ? just an open ear ? such as his delicious, Cajun-flavored cover of "Brown Eyed Handsome Man" and a tough take on "She Said Yeah." It's a testament to the quality of McCartney's three original songs ? the title track, "Try Not to Cry" and "What It Is" ? that they don't sound out of place with these short but sweet chestnuts. Run Devil Run ? produced by McCartney with Chris Thomas and featuring backing by, among others, Pink Floyd guitarist David Gilmour and Deep Purple drummer Ian Paice ? is simultaneously heartbreaking and life affirming. It's a hint that the upbeat optimism that has caused this man to so often be critically undervalued is tied to the same strength that is seeing him through. As for the rest of us, we get a great, unpretentious rock & roll record into the bargain. If you go back to 1982, RS gave Tug of War a 5 star review. See below. By Stephen Holden May 27, 1982 Tug of War is the masterpiece everyone has always known Paul McCartney could make. In style and format, the album isn't all that different from his earlier work, but the songs are far more substantial than the eccentric doodlings of recent albums. Instead of another homemade effort, McCartney has teamed up with producer George Martin to create a record with a sumptuous aural scope that recalls Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and Abbey Road. Together, McCartney and Martin have compiled a veritable encyclopedia of contemporary studio pop in the deluxe, high-tech tradition of Fleetwood Mac's Rumours, Michael Jackson's Off the Wall and Stevie Wonder's Songs in the Key of Life. Every cut offers a stylistic montage of one sort or another, creating an actual tug of war between different pop notions ? between British pop parochialism and Afro-American progressiveness, escapist fantasy and sage observation, world-weariness and utopian sentiments. But McCartney doesn't just present these oppositions, he unites them. Harmonious, peaceful coexistence is both the ethic and the aesthetic of the album. Conceptually, Tug of War is organized around two Paul McCartney-Stevie Wonder duets. Though it wasn't obvious until now, both musicians share a love of childlike melodies and playful asides, and McCartney's "Ebony and Ivory" is the ultimate display of this kinship. The tune's phonetic simplicity and its image of black and white piano keys as a metaphor for race relations combine to make a global children's song as ingenuous as "Happy Birthday," Wonder's tribute to Martin Luther King. McCartney's little tune is the ivory half of a matched pair. The ebony counterpart, "What's That You're Doing," is a red-hot pop-funk feast that's served up on Stevie Wonder's roiling and squiggling synthesizer. These companion pieces are simply the most obvious of many such juxtapositions. In the sweepingly majestic title song, McCartney observes that man's nobler aspirations and warlike impulses originate from the same human urge for more, and he underscores that statement with marching drums and lofty symphonic orchestration. The song could easily be McCartney's "Imagine," for it makes a similar leap of hope: "In years to come they may discover/What the air we breathe and the life we lead/Are all about/But it won't be soon enough ... for me." And like "Imagine," the song also acknowledges the worst side of humanity: "But with one thing and another/We were trying to outdo each other/In a tug of war." This solemnity gives way to pure exultation in "Take It Away," a multistyle rock & roll tour de force celebrating the joys of music making. Ethereal vocal harmonies inspired by Fleetwood Mac and 10cc, rollicking New Orleans-style horns and quotes from "She Loves You" all comfortably coincide on a cut that sounds like a raunchier, calypso-inflected update of "Silly Love Songs." "Ballroom Dancing," an audacious novelty in the "Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey" vein, allows McCartney to resolve the tensions between his nostalgic yearnings and his rock & roll passion by embracing both at once. This galloping fox trot, with its jolly music-hall melody, is tricked out with funky horns, and the lyrics, which intersperse bits of nonsense with fleeting images of England in the Fifties, manage to sound cute and hip at the same time. "Get It," a duet with Carl Perkins, is another clever hybrid ? an acoustic rockabilly strut. Yet the most powerful stylistic juxtaposition ? classical string quartet meets acoustic folk ? occurs on McCartney's eulogy to John Lennon, "Here Today." The lyrics ? in which McCartney remembers meeting, loving and eventually breaking down in tears with Lennon, while all the time never really understanding him ? evoke the depth and complexity of their friendship with an astounding tenderness. And George Martin's string arrangement is, if anything, even more graceful than the one he did for "Eleanor Rigby." "Here Today" brings up the album's most personal and painful aspect. Lennon and McCartney, after all, were icons of goodness in the Sixties, but even the Beatles' utopia wasn't immune to a tug of war that destroyed their collaboration and even, for a time, their friendship. There's a sense in which the whole album is a meditation on two deaths?the Beatles' and John Lennon's. In this emotionally wide-open atmosphere, even McCartney's more whimsical tunes assume bittersweet overtones. His fairy-tale love songs to Linda McCartney suggest that there is no war between them?perhaps because, for McCartney, the difference between marriage and friendship is the difference between cozy retreat and mortal risk taking. In the elaborate, gorgeously arranged "Dress Me Up as a Robber" and the staid, hymnlike "Wanderlust," McCartney compares sexual independence to foolish military adventuring. It's in these seemingly lighter moments that George Martin's studio touches illuminate McCartney's wistful hominess with exquisite musical details: a brass ensemble in "Wanderlust," pan pipes in the affably shuffling "Somebody Who Cares" and Beatlesque inner voices in the madcap "The Pound Is Sinking." Instrumentally, McCartney doesn't try to be a one-man band. Though he plays as many as six instruments on some cuts, Denny Laine takes over most of the electric-guitar chores, and Linda McCartney and Eric Stewart assist Paul with the backup singing. McCartney's vocals run the usual gamut?from the adrenalin hollering of "Ballroom Dancing" to the intimate, elegiac crooning of "Here Today," perhaps his finest ballad performance since "Yesterday." Of the many albums McCartney has churned out in his twelve-year solo career, only Band on the Run comes close to touching Tug of War in the richness of its style and the consistency of its songs. By striking a balance among Wings' streamlined pop-rock, the musicbox miniaturism of his solo projects and the Beatles' baroque expansiveness, Paul McCartney has left the rest of his solo career behind in the dust. Finally, my point is that RS has not been totally unfair to McCartney. He has received his fair share of some pretty decent reviews post Beatle career. Yes, they have slammed him on occasion but I think most people would agree that some of McCartney's post Beatle records were not that great.
-
The point is those albums were still much better than RS has ever given them credit for!
-
left hand man:
The point is those albums were still much better than RS has ever given them credit for!
Just for the heck of it, I looked up review of "Press To Play" which I believe most people on this board probably did not like very much. Read the RS review below and it is pretty good. By Anthony DeCurtis October 23, 1986 "What the hell gives you the right/To tell me what to do with my life?" Paul McCartney screeches on Press to Play, his first album of new material since 1983's Pipes of Peace. The lines occur in a guitar burner called "Angry" and stand as the ex-Beatle's challenge to critics of his love songs, sweet melodies and generally sunny disposition. "Angry" taps the emotion that's most likely responsible for making Press to Play one of the sturdiest LPs of McCartney's post-Beatles career. McCartney's easygoing exterior masks a deeply competitive streak ? this is a man who can take being dismissed as a wimp only so long. The last time McCartney weighed in credibly was on 1982's Tug of War, an album fired by its central image of struggle, a reunion with Beatles producer George Martin and the need to address the artistic legacy left by the recently slain John Lennon. If Pipes of Peace marked a return to pap and 1984's Give My Regards to Broad Street represented a retreat into Beatles revisionism, Press to Play plants McCartney firmly in the present. McCartney has always worked best with collaborators. The mates on Press to Play are Hugh Padgham, who coproduced the record with McCartney, and Eric Stewart, the ex-10cc stalwart, who co-wrote six of the LP's ten songs. Padgham, who has handled the board for the Police and Phil Collins, supplies Press to Play with an electronically dense contemporary sound that fleshes out McCartney's melodies and gives the LP rhythmic kick. Stewart pushes McCartney in some new directions, particularly on the dreamily abstract "Pretty Little Head" and the LP's grand Beatlesque finale, "However Absurd." The album opens with a snareslamming rocker, "Stranglehold," whose cracking horns and peppy chorus announce that McCartney hasn't lost his upbeat touch. The catchy pop suite "Good Times Coming/Feel the Sun" finds the singer in his Abbey Road mode, reeling from an edgy evocation of the past into a characteristically optimistic vision of what it will take to see us through the future: "All the beauty, all the pain/Will it ever be the same again?/If you love me, show me now/It's the only way that we know how." Even at their most rollicking, McCartney's rockers are reassuring, never threatening. The honky-tonk stomper "Move Over Busker," the cheery momentum of "Press" and the romping whimsy of "Talk More Talk" capture McCartney's engaging way with such material. On "However Absurd," McCartney, with a joking glance at his perceived status in the rock world, sings, "Custom made dinosaurs/Too late now, for a change/Everything is under the sun/But nothing is for keeps." While these lyrics might suggest a comfortable fatalism ? and a fondness for comfort has been McCartney's most damaging flaw ? they also express his sense that life slips away and that joyful times, a bright outlook and the ability to accept goodness are traits that shouldn't be too cavalierly shunted aside. It's a worthy point of view, and it's epitomized on Press to Play. "Taking the sand inside an oyster, changing it into a pearl" is how he puts it on "Only Love Remains." Or, as he phrased it once before, "Take a sad song and make it better." I will say that the RS review of "Pipes of Peace" is about the worst RS review of a McCartney record I have read in 30 years. See below. By Parke Puterbaugh January 19, 1984 After Tug of War. logically enough, come the Pipes of Peace. Carried, as it is, over two consecutive Paul McCartney records, the war-and-peace metaphor is not hard to miss. The message, too, is as simple and inarguable as the line of Indian wisdom inscribed inside the foldout jacket of the new LP: "In love all of life's contradictions disappear." Pipes of Peace is awash in love. Love of all the little children. Love between a man and a woman. Love of music. Love for all humankind. McCartney's love boat all but capsizes in the waves of almost opiated good feeling that swell over it from all sides. In truth, "Pipes of Peace," the title tune and first track up, commences quite promisingly. A fanfare of orchestral dissonance gives way to a closely miked McCartney singing a luscious four-line melody over spare, ascending piano chords. It is a rare and breathtaking moment, an instance of McCartney at his soulful, hopeful best. But then it abruptly turns into a frivolous, jerky oompah tune with unison voices echoing each clumsily phrased line of baby talk that follows. Sadly, an enticing snatch of songcraft becomes, in the end, just another silly love song. There is no dearth of silly love songs on this record. A top contender for silliest honors would have to be "The Other Me," a goofy, quasi-C&W tune sung in an annoyingly Donald Fagen-like slur: "I know I was a crazy fool/For treating you the way I did. But something took hold of me And I acted like a dustbin lid." But my vote would have to go to "Sweetest Little Show," a plea for critical magnanimity amid unforgivable doses of saccharine. One needn't read too deeply to apprehend that McCartney is, in all likelihood, singing to himself here: "You've been around a long time But you're still good for a while And if they try to criticize you Make them smile, make them smile." This put-on-a-happy-face minstrelsy carries over into Paul's several funk excursions. He's teamed up with Michael Jackson to assay the amiable though vapid dance groove of "Say Say Say" (instantly hit-bound froth-funk that tends, after all, toward banality). Their other collaboration. "The Man," is more off the wall, pairing, as it does, a heavily fuzz-toned lead guitar (shades of Ernie Isley) with a full-tilt stab at pure Broadway schmaltz: soaring choruses, orchestral swoops and swoons, and vaguely meaningful though ultimately indecipherable lyrics (e.g., "And it's just the way he thought it would be Cause the day has come for him to be free"). McCartney's collaboration with jazz-fusion bassist Stanley Clarke ("Hey Hey") is, on the other hand, a throwaway instrumental that leaves virtually no impression at all. Oddly enough, the same is true of both "So Bad" and "Through Our Love," which close sides one and two, respectively. Both are big ballads in the grand McCartney tradition; the latter, in particular, would seem to want to tie together the various themes of the record into a stirring finale but is, again, lyrically ineffectual, mounting a host of clichés and vagaries into a heap of well-meaning nonsense. Now, Paul McCartney is, after all, Paul McCartney, so these are not the gaffes of some mere novice or of an easy-listening hack like Christopher Cross. It seems that in some fractured sense, he fully intends to be unexceptional. Think back to the modestly scaled, hearth-and-home vignettes of the first several solo albums, or of his heroic, determined submergence in the group identity of Wings. Underneath all the elaborate arrangements and high-sheen production on Pipes of Peace (provided by George Martin, who also worked on Tug of War) is a humble man who retains affection ? fascination, even ? with the lot of the common folk. This is manifested most blatantly in "Average Person": "Look at the average person/Speak to the man in the street/Can you imagine the first one you'd meet?" He thereupon "imagines" the lives of three such people ? a truck driver, a waitress and an ex-boxer. The obvious relish with which he ponders these lives is fairly heartwarming. He is, in the end, hard to dislike. He does "make them smile." But most of the time, he tries so hard to be an average man that he winds up making below-average music. Confusing slightness and simplicity, Pipes of Peace is, by and large, mediocre McCartney. I have supplied a bunch of reviews in the last 30 years in a couple of posts and by in large they have mostly been very positive. The reviews have been complimentary of every aspect of McCartney from his bass playing , vocals and to song writing. Does RS think more highly of Lennon as a artist? Maybe be but I truly believe some of that is due to the tragic way Lennon died.
-
left hand man:
The point is those albums were still much better than RS has ever given them credit for!
exactly... and RS is not doing Paul a favor by writing what should be written on master piece like "Tug Of War" the way they treated him for years makes no one believe he can make one decent solo album! I will always hate what they did to him continuously!
-
It's pointless to rerun those reviews - every one is a bouquet of barbed wire, full of caveats. Godrich is given credit for Chaos, George Martin for Tug of War, yet there's no mention of Martin in the Pipes of Peace review. Tug of War is also coloured by the reviewer's 'notion' that McCartney and Wonder do 'childlike' melodies. etc. And all the reviews are written in a patronising style which has a deprecating wink hidden in the adjectives. As long term McCartney fans, we should know better. With a few exceptions there is not a great qualitative difference between any of these albums - there are as many good songs on London Town or Back to the Egg as there are on Tug of War. But we're allowing our idea of of what constitutes a classic McCartney album to be led by the very people who set out to destroy his career.
-
Squid:
It's pointless to rerun those reviews - every one is a bouquet of barbed wire, full of caveats. Godrich is given credit for Chaos, George Martin for Tug of War, yet there's no mention of Martin in the Pipes of Peace review. Tug of War is also coloured by the reviewer's 'notion' that McCartney and Wonder do 'childlike' melodies. etc. And all the reviews are written in a patronising style which has a deprecating wink hidden in the adjectives. As long term McCartney fans, we should know better. With a few exceptions there is not a great qualitative difference between any of these albums - there are as many good songs on London Town or Back to the Egg as there are on Tug of War. But we're allowing our idea of of what constitutes a classic McCartney album to be led by the very people who set out to destroy his career.
Really. How did RS set out to destroy his career. Oh my goodness, he may have gotten a couple of bad record reviews. Oh my, they may have thought Lennon was better than McCartney. Even with this perceived attempt at "destroying" McCartney, Wings sold incredible amount of records with many top 10 singles and albums. Wings was also one of the biggest touring acts in the 1970's. As for his solo career, there is not one bad review of a McCartney album by RS in about 25 years. As I said earlier,RS has raved about McCartney concert performances for over 20 years. So RS mentioned the producers when they really liked a album, is that not typical in a review. The producers of the album did not write the songs, play the instruments and sing the vocals, McCartney did all of that and most people understand who gets the major credit for a good album. In addition,I guess you did not read the "Pipes of Peace" review because they do mention George Martin. From the review, "Underneath all the elaborate arrangements and high-sheen production on Pipes of Peace (provided by George Martin, who also worked on Tug of War)" IMO - the problem is that certain people on this board take major offense at the slightest criticism of McCartney or a slight in a top 100 poll.
-
yankeefan7:
I guess you did not read the "Pipes of Peace" review because they do mention George Martin. From the review, "Underneath all the elaborate arrangements and high-sheen production on Pipes of Peace (provided by George Martin, who also worked on Tug of War)"
You've really got to start reading things deeper than face value - what those reviews are about is written all over them. Of course i read the POP review and saw Martin's name tucked away like it didn't exist, while it was prominent in the TOW review. Personally I don't give a fig about RS, but this is a forum and here is a thread to discuss. What do you want us to do - sit on our hands?
-
Squid:
yankeefan7:
I guess you did not read the "Pipes of Peace" review because they do mention George Martin. From the review, "Underneath all the elaborate arrangements and high-sheen production on Pipes of Peace (provided by George Martin, who also worked on Tug of War)"
You've really got to start reading things deeper than face value - what those reviews are about is written all over them.
Absolutely. The utterly patronizing tone in all of those RS reviews seems pretty obvious to me, unless you're wearing some serious blinders. In the RS world, Lennon always gets to be "the genius," Paul is always just "the craftsman." The fact is: When people come to the RS site looking for reviews of Paul's albums, this is the page they see: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/artists/paul-mccartney/albumguide And even when the magazine does admit that it was wrong -- and upgrades its reviews of McCartney (3.5 stars), Ram (4.5 stars), and McCartney II (3 stars)-- the magazine's MAIN page listing its reviews of Paul's albums sticks to the old ratings for all 3 albums (2.5 stars, 3 stars, and 2 stars, respectively). That same page misreports Paul's albums as 3-star reviews that Yankeefan found were actually given 4 stars. That same page omits the magazine's 4.5 star review of Electric Arguments. That same page gives its highest rating for a Paul-only solo album to an album of covers -- a nice passive-aggressive way of saying "this guy's best solo album is a bunch of songs written by someone else." That is how this magazine summarizes and sabotages Paul's solo reputation. But this is all old news. And that list of 100 greatest artists is old news. It does feel good to know that in the larger music world, no one cares anymore what RS thinks about music. We're just rehashing ancient history here.
-
Squid:
yankeefan7:
I guess you did not read the "Pipes of Peace" review because they do mention George Martin. From the review, "Underneath all the elaborate arrangements and high-sheen production on Pipes of Peace (provided by George Martin, who also worked on Tug of War)"
You've really got to start reading things deeper than face value - what those reviews are about is written all over them. Of course i read the POP review and saw Martin's name tucked away like it didn't exist, while it was prominent in the TOW review. Personally I don't give a fig about RS, but this is a forum and here is a thread to discuss. What do you want us to do - sit on our hands?
OK. I have read the reviews and just think differently from you. I don't find mentioning a producer's work or songriting partner in review is giving them the major credit for the good review instead of McCartney. I never said things like this should not be discussed, why not it is a forum. I did say that I think people are a little bit too sensitive when McCartney does not get a good review or he is not as high in a poll as they think he should be.
-
Michelley:
Squid:
yankeefan7:
I guess you did not read the "Pipes of Peace" review because they do mention George Martin. From the review, "Underneath all the elaborate arrangements and high-sheen production on Pipes of Peace (provided by George Martin, who also worked on Tug of War)"
You've really got to start reading things deeper than face value - what those reviews are about is written all over them.
Absolutely. The utterly patronizing tone in all of those RS reviews seems pretty obvious to me, unless you're wearing some serious blinders. In the RS world, Lennon always gets to be "the genius," Paul is always just "the craftsman." The fact is: When people come to the RS site looking for reviews of Paul's albums, this is the page they see: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/artists/paul-mccartney/albumguide And even when the magazine does admit that it was wrong -- and upgrades its reviews of McCartney (3.5 stars), Ram (4.5 stars), and McCartney II (3 stars)-- the magazine's MAIN page listing its reviews of Paul's albums sticks to the old ratings for all 3 albums (2.5 stars, 3 stars, and 2 stars, respectively). That same page misreports Paul's albums as 3-star reviews that Yankeefan found were actually gave 4 stars to. That same page omits the magazine's 4.5 star review of Electric Arguments. That same page gives it's highest rating for a Paul-only solo album to ah album of covers -- a nice passive-aggressive way of saying "this guy's best album is a bunch of songs written by someone else." For anyone paying attention, it's obviously a steady and not very subtle campaign of undercutting the man and his work. But this is all old news. And that list of 100 greatest artists is old news. It does feel good to know that in the larger music world, no one cares anymore what RS thinks about music. We're just rehashing ancient history here.
OK, just a few points to your answer. First, I would think McCartney himself would call Lennon a song writing "genius" so what is the harm of RS doing it also. I can't remember having read RS call McCartney a "craftsman". RS is usually are quite complimentary about the melodies/hooks that McCartney can write with such ease. If McCartney has been criticized by RS for anything while writing songs it has been his lyrics which at times can be pretty lame for a man of his incredible talent. The album guide thing you refer to is probably due to laziness and not intent on downgrading McCartney IMO. RS should really correct it but I am willing to bet you that they have no idea it has not been updated on their link. As for the album of mostly covers (Run Devil Run), the record does have three McCartney original songs. The RS review also states that these originals are very good and fit in with the other 50's classics. All major artists (including McCartney) still do interviews with RS so they must feel the magazine has some value and reach a audience they want to reach for their new record/concert tour etc. Finally, I enjoy reading record reviews of my favorite artists. I will not agree with reviews all the time but find it interesting to read different opinions. I will also read reviews from different media sources which may include RS, NY Times, USA Today or even ITUNES.
-
yankeefan7:
OK, just a few points to your answer. First, I would think McCartney himself would call Lennon a song writing "genius" so what is the harm of RS doing it also.
Of course there's no harm in them calling John a genius. He was. But Paul was/is, too. The harm is in them never (or rarely ever) calling Paul a genius. The following sentence from a 2009 RS article about the Beatles breakup is how McCartney routinely gets treated by RS magazine:
Though Lennon is more commonly regarded as the Beatles' true genius (which is inarguable: he wrote the bulk of their masterpieces and until the last couple years of their career, wrote the best tracks on their albums), it is also fair to say that without McCartney, the Beatles would not have mattered in history with such ingenuity and durability.
So ... Lennon is the "true genius" and that is "inarguable" because he "wrote the bulk of their masterpieces." Right. And Paul gets a pat on the head for being good at marketing the band to preserve its place in history. And that is how RS treats Paul ALL the time. Strawberry Fields Forever is a masterpiece. Penny Lane is just a pretty song. John is the artist. Paul is the pop star.
All major artists (including McCartney) still do interviews with RS so they must feel the magazine has some value and reach a audience they want to reach for their new record/concert tour etc.
Well, it reaches an aging white male rock audience that still buys albums. Of course artists talk to RS. It's a media outlet for a targeted audience. But RS hasn't set the agenda in music in several decades. And thank goodness. Because the only reason Ram is now recognized as a masterpiece is thanks to Web sites like Pitchfork and AV Club that critiqued the music without an agenda.
-
Michelley, if I ever need a lawyer, I want YOU on my side, gal.
-
audi:
Michelley, if I ever need a lawyer, I want YOU on my side, gal.
I just like to marshall my evidence, that's all. It would be nice to see Paul get evenhanded treatment -- not special treatment for his weakest work, just proper respect for the genius of his best work.
-
Michelley:
yankeefan7:
OK, just a few points to your answer. First, I would think McCartney himself would call Lennon a song writing "genius" so what is the harm of RS doing it also.
Of course there's no harm in them calling John a genius. He was. But Paul was/is, too. The harm is in them never (or rarely ever) calling Paul a genius. The following sentence from a 2009 RS article about the Beatles breakup is how McCartney routinely gets treated by RS magazine:
Though Lennon is more commonly regarded as the Beatles' true genius (which is inarguable: he wrote the bulk of their masterpieces and until the last couple years of their career, wrote the best tracks on their albums), it is also fair to say that without McCartney, the Beatles would not have mattered in history with such ingenuity and durability.
So ... Lennon is the "true genius" and that is "inarguable" because he "wrote the bulk of their masterpieces." Right. And Paul gets a pat on the head for being good at marketing the band to preserve its place in history. And that is how RS treats Paul ALL the time. Strawberry Fields Forever is a masterpiece. Penny Lane is just a pretty song. John is the artist. Paul is the pop star.
All major artists (including McCartney) still do interviews with RS so they must feel the magazine has some value and reach a audience they want to reach for their new record/concert tour etc.
Well, it reaches an aging white male rock audience that still buys albums. Of course artists talk to RS. It's a media outlet for a targeted audience. But RS hasn't set the agenda in music in several decades. And thank goodness. Because the only reason Ram is now recognized as a masterpiece is thanks to Web sites like Pitchfork and AV Club that critiqued the music without an agenda.
From RS below. These examples are from RS top 500 songs of all time. Three of the four Beatle songs that are in the top 20 are definitely McCartney songs, see below. The other song in the top 20 (I Want To Hold Your Hand) was definitely a collabaration and not a Lennon song. "Yesterday" #13 Paul McCartney's greatest ballad holds a Guinness World Record as the most recorded song of all time; seven years later, there were 1,186 versions by artists as varied as Frank Sinatra, Otis Redding and Willie Nelson. But McCartney's original reading ? cut on June 14th, 1965, at EMI's Abbey Road studios in London ? remains the most beautiful and daring of all: a frank poem of regret scored and sung with haunted elegance. There are no other Beatles on the record. None were needed "Hey Jude" #8 Paul McCartney wrote "Hey Jude" in June 1968, singing to himself on his way to visit Lennon's soon-to-be-ex-wife, Cynthia, and their son, Julian. The opening lines were, McCartney once said, "a hopeful message for Julian: 'Come on, man, your parents got divorced. I know you're not happy, but you'll be OK.'" McCartney changed "Jules" to "Jude" ? a name inspired by Jud from the musical Oklahoma! ? and presented a demo tape to Lennon, who loved the song. He also thought McCartney was singing to him, about his relationship with Yoko Ono and the strains on the Lennon-McCartney partnership. But his self-centered reading underscored the universal comfort in McCartney's lyrics and the song's warm, rolling charm, fortified in the fade-out by a 36-piece orchestra whose members (with one grumpy exception) also clapped and sang along ? for double their usual fee. "Let It Be" #20 Inspired by the church-born soul of Aretha Franklin, an anxious Paul McCartney started writing "Let It Be" in 1968, during the contentious sessions for the White Album. His opening lines ? "When I find myself in times of trouble/Mother Mary comes to me" ? were based on a dream in which his own late mother, Mary, offered solace during a tumultuous time for both the band and the culture, assuring him that everything would turn out fine. "I'm not sure if she used the words 'Let it be,'" McCartney recalled, "but that was the gist of her advice." McCartney unveiled a skeletal version of "Let It Be" to the other Beatles at an even worse time: during the initial, disastrous Let It Be rehearsals in January 1969. John Lennon, the group's resident heretic, was brutally dismissive, mistaking McCartney's secular humanism for self-righteous piety. Yet the Beatles put special labor into the song, getting the consummate take on January 31st ? the day after their last live performance, on the roof of their Apple offices in London. (R&B musician Billy Preston, a friend of the band's from its early days, contributed the gospel-flavored organ part.) George Harrison later took a couple of cracks at adding a guitar solo: The single version features his solo from April 30th, 1969, and the album cut's solo was taped at the final Beatles recording session, on January 4th, 1970. Released four months later, "Let It Be" effectively became an elegy for the band that had defined the Sixties. OK, When RS does not like record like RAM it is because they have agenda and when I show positive 4-5 star reviews of McCartney records, you and "Squid" complain about the "hidden" message behind the positive review (credit to the producers like Martin, Godrich etc). IMO - maybe if they write a review that says McCartney walks on water and is God's gift to music you and others will be satisfied. BTW - RS was not the only media outlet that dismissed RAM in the 70's. It was generally panned by everyone. History has been kind to the record and that is nice but let's not try and say that RAM was loved by everyone but RS in the 70's. See below. "Upon its release, Ram was poorly received by music critics, and McCartney was particularly stung by the harsh reviews − especially as he had attempted to address the points raised in criticism of his earlier album, McCartney, by adopting a more professional approach this time around. Jon Landau in Rolling Stone called Ram "incredibly inconsequential" and "monumentally irrelevant", and criticized that it lacks intensity and energy. He added that it exposes McCartney as having "benefited immensely from collaboration" with the Beatles, particularly John Lennon, who "held the reins in on McCartney's cutsie-pie, florid attempts at pure rock muzak" and kept him from "going off the deep end that leads to an album as emotionally vacuous as Ram." Playboy accused McCartney of "substituting facility for any real substance", and compared it to "watching someone juggle five guitars: It's fairly impressive, but you keep wondering why he bothers." Robert Christgau of The Village Voice panned his songs as pretentious "crotchets ... so lightweight they float away even as Paulie layers them down with caprices." Writing some four years later, Roy Carr and Tony Tyler from NME claimed that "it would be naive to have expected the McCartneys to produce anything other than a mediocre record ... Grisly though this was, McCartney was to sink lower before rescuing his credibility late in 1973." His fellow ex-Beatles, all of whom were riding high in the critics' favour with their recent releases, were likewise vocal in their negativity. Lennon famously hated the album, dismissing his former songwriting partner's efforts as "muzak to my ears" in his song "How Do You Sleep?". Even the affable Starr told Britain's Melody Maker: "I feel sad about Paul's albums ... I don't think there's one [good] tune on the last one, Ram ... he seems to be going strange. To Audi - the defense rests - LOL !!!