"New" Reviews
-
Beatles4Ever&Ever:
yankeefan7:
B J Conlee:
No surprise... The Internet has quite a few reviews now on "New". Some are on this thread but there are more like Oakland and I believe Phoenix. The good news is that almost all are positive. You always get a good bit of sarcasm with critics with Paul but in general, they like the music. LA times was glowing and the big winner I believe. Tomorrow will even be a bigger day regarding reviews. Let's hope that USA Today has favorable one.
NY Times review below which is pretty postive although they don't have a rating system. Note** McCartney review is the review after Pearl Jam. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/15/arts/music/new-music-from-pearl-jam-paul-mccartney-and-cassadee-pope.html?ref=music&_r=0
That's critical,as that's how they see things shaping up...as far as sales, importance, etc., are concerned. I had hoped Paul would get top billing. It's a bit strange and amusing to read the NY Times, as they have this 'policy' of referring to everyone by Mr/Mrs/Ms....so, it's Mr Vedder, Mr McCartney...it's formal and yet not, simultaneously. I think they should resort to 'that' on the front page/world news sections, editorial pages,...but NOT in the style or sports sections. It just seems wrong!!!
The NY Times refers to eveyone as Mr/Mrs/Ms in all of its articles in the arts. It is also "proper" journalism and a form of respect to do this when talking about a person. As for top billing, not that big a deal IMO being behind "Pearl Jam".
-
Beatles4Ever&Ever:
yankeefan7:
B J Conlee:
No surprise... The Internet has quite a few reviews now on "New". Some are on this thread but there are more like Oakland and I believe Phoenix. The good news is that almost all are positive. You always get a good bit of sarcasm with critics with Paul but in general, they like the music. LA times was glowing and the big winner I believe. Tomorrow will even be a bigger day regarding reviews. Let's hope that USA Today has favorable one.
USA today review, short but good. 3 stars out of possible 4. http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/music/reviews/2013/10/14/album-of-the-week-mccartneys-new/2982559/
Sorry, but that is just not acceptable from USA Today!! Gunderson, who I would imagine does an interview with Paul...which I assume will be in tomorrow's USA Today edition as well...should have done the review. Elyse Gardner, is waaaaay too conservative. Did they/she not have at least a 3 1/2 category??? She barely scratched the surface of the album!!! ops:
I think that for a legenday artist, it was way too short a review but appeciate that it was positve.
-
Thanks for the reviews. Thoughts: USA today- I also was surprises that Gardner did the review. She normally reviews Broadway Shows and doesn't specialize in classic rock like Edna Gunderson. As Yankeefan said, at least she was positive. I just hate lazy, incomplete reviews. She did recommend downloading 5 songs...a nice # We'll find out tomorrow if they do any additional feature on Paul. That will be great if they did.
-
NY Times Review Another positive review, although I wasn't sure what the critic was saying about Early Days in the final paragraph. He seemed negative towards Paul's subject matter in the lyrics and Paul'l vocal. At least everything else was positive. Any thoughts?7
-
Here is a review from the New Yorker. A bit of backhanded "Paul as genius" review. Read carefully. http//www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2013/10/the-generic-genius-of-paul-mccartney.html
-
About the New York Times review, I thought the last paragraph was okay. If you have to work at charm sometimes, and it doesn't always come effortlessly, well, that's only human. The overall review is positive. Rather intriguing in making you want to hear it. Now I'm gonna tackle the New Yorker take on "New." The New York intelligentsia speaks. "The New Yorker" review is mostly a big put down and the word "generic" tipped that off. "Early Days" is "one of the rare (McCartney) songs to sound written by a real human and show real honest emotion"? (paraphrased) And earlier in the review the writer seems to be wanting a Plastic Ono Band album-type "ragged" totally open and revealing quality--the writer might be a closet Lennon booster, preferring John's work to Paul's. I find the implication McCartney isn't a real artist and only a "rock star" offensive and untrue. The reviewer even finds fault with Paul's parting words to the arts high school teens, after Paul has given his all to them as a surprise free gift of his time and talents and inspiration.
-
This from the Washington Post. Seems pretty positive. http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/music/review-paul-mccartneys-new-album-new-producers-inject-liveliness-into-latest-record/2013/10/14/1b83ee76-34d3-11e3-80c6-7e6dd8d22d8f_story.html
-
Whew! I needed to read that glowing Washington Post critique, after suffering through the often insufferable "New Yorker's" (see my post above)!
-
If anyone calls that line in "Early Days" about the only way he could survive was to change pain into laughter "superficial" then they've got their head up their tail. Am referring to that travesty of a review from "The New Yorker." The critic relied heavily on that erroneous old cliché of Paul's music being trivial and shallow--it's not true!
-
[quote="SusyLuvsPaul"] "The New Yorker" review is mostly a big put down and the word "generic" tipped that off. "Early Days" is "one of the rare (McCartney) songs to sound written by a real human and show real honest emotion"? (paraphrased) And earlier in the review the writer seems to be wanting a Plastic Ono Band album-type "ragged" totally open and revealing quality--the writer might be a closet Lennon booster, preferring John's work to Paul's. I find the implication McCartney isn't a real artist and only a "rock star" offensive and untrue. The reviewer even finds fault with Paul's parting words to the arts high school teens, after Paul has given his all to them as a surprise free gift of his time and talents and inspiration. Paul does write songs that are generic in that they might express a specific situation but they have larger meaning. For example, "Here Today" is about John and him but it is also generic in that it could apply to various relationships that any of us have had. I thought that this was where the reviewer was going but unfortunately that was not the case. Paul's songs are also often described as meaning nothing. I disagree, a song like "Jet" might not make a lot of sense but it is a song about escape and freedom like the entire album that it comes from. Then of course, the criticism that Paul does bring emotion. Okay, listen to Flaming Pie and his anguish or his anger on Nothing Too Much Just Out of Sight on EA or....
-
Or his song "Angry" on Press to Play...or his song "It's Not True" on PTP... The term "Generic" was used for "universal," you mean? The songs have universal applications, universal meaning, anyone could relate to the situation or feeling--that's supposed to be a good thing. Some of Paul's songs express an emotion more than an intellectual meaning, such as "Jet," which you mentioned. He DOES express emotion in that and other ways. He IS an artist and not "just" a "rock star"
-
SusyLuvsPaul:
Whew! I needed to read that glowing Washington Post critique, after suffering through the often insufferable "New Yorker's" (see my post above)!
Susy, I was just doing the same thing...reading the washing post review. I was also thinking of the same word...glowing. So far, the LA Times and now this one have been the most glowing. I think you predicted these 2. Do you have inside info? Anyway, Paul's reviews in general (except in England) have been strong. He has been holding his own against Pearl Jam's review. Would be real interesting if they ended up #1 and 2 in sales the 1st week.
-
Pearl Jam, their harsh, over-bearing bombastic style as conveyed by Eddie Vedder's singing--is boring to me, compared to Paul music and its stunning variety. Paul is hip and cool to me in that any artist who is truly gifted in one of the arts, is cool and hip. Not just that-- it's the associations with him, his persona, his glorious "baggage" in being at the forefront of creating rock n' roll--at being present at the dawn of rock and furthering the cause so brilliantly and originally with genius Beatles songs--how could that not be anything but cool and hip, as much so as many assume of Pearl Jam? Am I making sense? To me it seems and feels I am, about this About what's really cool. I don't understand it when it's said Paul is not seen as being cool.
-
Suzy, I can see where the New Yorker review would make you furious. Similar to my feeling when I read the Guardian review...where Paul needs a collaborator to edit all his weak ideas (that kind of garbage). At least in the New Yorker the guy admitted Paul's genius and did listen and reported on the whole album. He basically said that Paul is the greatest pop writer of all time and "new" continues in that vein.As you say, the sweeping generalizations are totally inaccurate.
-
Well our Macca has had a big last 24 hours. Just read the complete Rolling Stone Review (now on their Website) and it is not only good.. It is (our favorite word) GLOWING. I would love to be with Paul's marketing team now. I am sure the champagne is flowing. More buzz about a McCartney album launch than I can remember. US music critics as a whole love the songs of New. And whoever came up with the idea to have Paul perform to the school in Queen's...genius move. What a start and hopefully Paul makes some more appearances to keep it going.
-
B J Conlee:
NY Times Review Another positive review, although I wasn't sure what the critic was saying about Early Days in the final paragraph. He seemed negative towards Paul's subject matter in the lyrics and Paul'l vocal. At least everything else was positive. Any thoughts?7
I did not take the vocal as a real putdown, just said it was not totally "smooth" and a bit "scratchy". Will listen to "New" the CD for the first time later today and listen for myself and see if I agree.. IMO - I think the writer was surprised that McCartney still seems to worry about who did what with Beatle songs and I can understand that a little bit.
-
B J Conlee:
Well our Macca has had a big last 24 hours. Just read the complete Rolling Stone Review (now on their Website) and it is not only good.. It is (our favorite word) GLOWING. I would love to be with Paul's marketing team now. I am sure the champagne is flowing. More buzz about a McCartney album launch than I can remember. US music critics as a whole love the songs of New. And whoever came up with the idea to have Paul perform to the school in Queen's...genius move. What a start and hopefully Paul makes some more appearances to keep it going.
Yep, it has been very good to read all these positive reviews. The critics not only like the songs musically they seem fairly impressed with the lyrics and we all know that can sometimes be a problem with McCartney. If "New" does not sell well then I think we should all give up - ha ha. The McCartney team has done a great job with marketing and the reviews have all been good to excellent. Finally, I really have a gut feeling McCartney is going to do well when it comes time for Grammy nominations. I know lots of people blow off the Grammy awards but I think the publicity of getting nominations is a good thing and it also helps historically. Yes, McCartney has no problem with his history with the Beatles but any Grammy nominations for his solo work will help future generations know he was more than "Beatle Paul".
-
SusyLuvsPaul:
Pearl Jam, their harsh, over-bearing bombastic style as conveyed by Eddie Vedder's singing--is boring to me, compared to Paul music and its stunning variety. Paul is hip and cool to me in that any artist who is truly gifted in one of the arts, is cool and hip. Not just that-- it's the associations with him, his persona, his glorious "baggage" in being at the forefront of creating rock n' roll--at being present at the dawn of rock and furthering the cause so brilliantly and originally with genius Beatles songs--how could that not be anything but cool and hip, as much so as many assume of Pearl Jam? Am I making sense? To me it seems and feels I am, about this About what's really cool. I don't understand it when it's said Paul is not seen as being cool.
FYI - RS magazine rated "New" better than Pearl Jam's record - lol
-
Not sure if this one had been posted yet from EW. A- http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20743633,00.html
-
Just wonderful! Thank you Paul!