"New" Reviews
-
lisalou7:
Interesting the Guardian review rehashes a lot of Beatles stuff (yawn). Paul's granny music. (Yawn, yawn) This is very interesting though more to do with the production on the album and the last line of the paragraph on this idea, The one thing he really needs is the one thing that he can't have, because it doesn't exist: an equal. Exactly he is a bloody musical legend.
-
Can't find it online just now, but new issue of Rolling Stone is out ("Walking Dead"/Zombie cover) has their "NEW" review and they gave it 4 stars.
-
thenightfish:
Can't find it online just now, but new issue of Rolling Stone is out ("Walking Dead"/Zombie cover) has their "NEW" review and they gave it 4 stars.
Awesome, looking forward to reading it.
-
B J Conlee:
yankeefan7:
TheMajor:
From The Telegraph - 5 stars! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/cdreviews/10364773/Paul-McCartney-New-review.html
Awesome start of media reviews. Just curious how they have been with recent McCartney records, critical or favorable?
Yankeefan7, I was thinking exactly the same thing...awesome start. The reviews should start pouring in this weekend and especially next week. I unfortunately read the comments to this review. They are pretty ugly. Shows that there are some real "haters" who despise Paul without even listening to the album. The great thing is that Paul has never listened to all that trash. He just keeps doing his thing and putting out great music.
Screw the comments IMO.
-
lisalou7:
Guardian Review, not so positive. 3/5 http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/oct/10/paul-mccartney-new-review Some very positive elements but not entirely convinced.
OK, too each their own but still they are not trashing it. I got a question for people in UK, aren't the reviewers tougher on McCartney than the ones in the US. Seems to me he can never please them but you all know better than me so let me know.
-
favoritething:
yankeefan7:
left hand man:
If they do, it will be a first! RS has never really been kind to McCartney. When Chaos was released, RS said that finally McCartney makes a good album, all I could think was, what a total load of Bull!
Really, read reviews below which they gave four stars http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/driving-rain-20011030 http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/electric-arguments-20081127 http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/flowers-in-the-dirt-19890629 MAF only got 3 stars but if you read the review they are not blasting McCartney http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/memory-almost-full-20070530
Yes, in fact, I clearly remember RS giving McCartney 5 stars for "Tug Of War." The trouble with RS is they can be somewhat revisionist, or at least their reviewers contradict each other. I also remember they gave Madonna's first album 2 stars, then her second got 3 and a half, mentioning it wasn't as good as her first!
Probably because two different people did the Madonna reviews and the person who did the 2nd one never read the first one - lol.
-
yankeefan7:
lisalou7:
Guardian Review, not so positive. 3/5 http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/oct/10/paul-mccartney-new-review Some very positive elements but not entirely convinced.
OK, too each their own but still they are not trashing it. I got a question for people in UK, aren't the reviewers tougher on McCartney than the ones in the US. Seems to me he can never please them but you all know better than me so let me know.
I think they can be harsher. I got the feeling the reviewer wanted to like it but was more worried about appearing 'cool'.
-
After all was said and done ROLLING STONE named ONE OF THE BEST ALBUMS OF THE YEAR !!
-
lisalou7:
yankeefan7:
lisalou7:
Guardian Review, not so positive. 3/5 http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/oct/10/paul-mccartney-new-review Some very positive elements but not entirely convinced.
OK, too each their own but still they are not trashing it. I got a question for people in UK, aren't the reviewers tougher on McCartney than the ones in the US. Seems to me he can never please them but you all know better than me so let me know.
I think they can be harsher. I got the feeling the reviewer wanted to like it but was more worried about appearing 'cool'.
That's exactly right-this reviewer is notorious for writing sarcastic pieces and trying to appear 'cool', his review of Dylan's Tempest album was in the same style.
-
Whatever the publication the review is just the opinion of one individual so counts for nothing. In the end the only opinion that matters is that of our own as individuals.
-
thenightfish:
Can't find it online just now, but new issue of Rolling Stone is out ("Walking Dead"/Zombie cover) has their "NEW" review and they gave it 4 stars.
4 stars from Rolling Stone? I'm shocked. But I'll take it!
-
wingsdgm:
After all was said and done ROLLING STONE named ONE OF THE BEST ALBUMS OF THE YEAR !!
Outstanding, good publicity never hurts.
-
Michelley:
thenightfish:
Can't find it online just now, but new issue of Rolling Stone is out ("Walking Dead"/Zombie cover) has their "NEW" review and they gave it 4 stars.
4 stars from Rolling Stone? I'm shocked. But I'll take it!
Actually, they have been pretty positve about McCartney recordings since FITD so I am not totally surprised.
-
This is now my favorite McCartney album.
-
lisalou7:
Guardian Review, not so positive. 3/5 http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/oct/10/paul-mccartney-new-review Some very positive elements but not entirely convinced.
________________________________________________________ The only bad thing about the excitement of a new Macca album is the anti-Paul stuff that invaribly appears in print media. Not just the reviews but also the comments to the reviews. Lots of hate and jealousy out there. I just wished that I could have read some positive reviews prior to Guardian. Reading some good reviews beforehand and I might have taken Mr. Petridis with a grain of salt. Conversely, I came away furious. All I had to do is read the 1st paragraph and I knew already where this guy was heading. Same old, same old of prejudice against Paul. You will never get an objective review from these kinds of critics so in my mind the 3 stars (out of 5) means nothing about the quality of the album. The bad part however is that others read him and take his opinions as gospel. Instead of looking at "New" objectively, he is bringing up Teddy Boy and Paul's Granny music according to John (like he knew John intimately and was in all their sessions). He further suggests that Paul's early Solo and Wings' success was strictly on Beatle momentum and after that success waned he hasn't had a hit single in 26 years. He fails to mention that the whole industry and technology changed and that no aging rocker has hit singles anymore. It, of course, has nothing to do with the quality of Paul's compositions. He basically says that Paul hasn't had any good albums in his Post Beatle years because he can't find collaborators who will "drown out all his lesser ideas". Are you kidding me? I personally think that Paul has had 6 to 8 outstanding albums and many more good ones. If you can see through his prejudice, you know that this review cannot be subjective. It is sad that this guy gets an audience when he is not true to what a critic really should be...objective. The only good thing when he finally got to the album (even then he was still throwing shots at Macca) is that he admitted that he liked several songs including Appreciate, Early Days, Hosanna and Alligator. I have only heard 4 songs from "NEW" so far (none of them listed above) and I like them all. If I also like the additional 4 songs that Mr. Petridis likes, "NEW" already makes for an exciting album to look forward to. Hopefully, more reviews will be coming down the pike by critics that will look at the album and tracks objectively. Looking forward to seeing more!
-
B J Conlee:
lisalou7:
Guardian Review, not so positive. 3/5 http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/oct/10/paul-mccartney-new-review Some very positive elements but not entirely convinced.
________________________________________________________ The only bad thing about the excitement of a new Macca album is the anti-Paul stuff that invaribly appears in print media. Not just the reviews but also the comments to the reviews. Lots of hate and jealousy out there. I just wished that I could have read some positive reviews prior to Guardian. Reading some good reviews beforehand and I might have taken Mr. Petridis with a grain of salt. Conversely, I came away furious. All I had to do is read the 1st paragraph and I knew already where this guy was heading. Same old, same old of prejudice against Paul. You will never get an objective review from these kinds of critics so in my mind the 3 stars (out of 5) means nothing about the quality of the album. The bad part however is that others read him and take his opinions as gospel. Instead of looking at "New" objectively, he is bringing up Teddy Boy and Paul's Granny music according to John (like he knew John intimately and was in all their sessions). He further suggests that Paul's early Solo and Wings' success was strictly on Beatle momentum and after that success waned he hasn't had a hit single in 26 years. He fails to mention that the whole industry and technology changed and that no aging rocker has hit singles anymore. It, of course, has nothing to do with the quality of Paul's compositions. He basically says that Paul hasn't had any good albums in his Post Beatle years because he can't find collaborators who will "drown out all his lesser ideas". Are you kidding me? I personally think that Paul has had 6 to 8 outstanding albums and many more good ones. If you can see through his prejudice, you know that this review cannot be subjective. It is sad that this guy gets an audience when he is not true to what a critic really should be...objective. The only good thing when he finally got to the album (even then he was still throwing shots at Macca) is that he admitted that he liked several songs including Appreciate, Early Days, Hosanna and Alligator. I have only heard 4 songs from "NEW" so far (none of them listed above) and I like them all. If I also like the additional 4 songs that Mr. Petridis likes, "NEW" already makes for an exciting album to look forward to. Hopefully, more reviews will be coming down the pike by critics that will look at the album and tracks objectively. Looking forward to seeing more!
Excellent points. I mean really at this stage why does a review of a McCartney record have to live so much in the past. What does not having a "hit" single in 26 yrs have to do with the quality of "New"? Has someone like Dylan ever had a #1 single - lol.
-
yankeefan7:
B J Conlee:
lisalou7:
Guardian Review, not so positive. 3/5 http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/oct/10/paul-mccartney-new-review Some very positive elements but not entirely convinced.
________________________________________________________ The only bad thing about the excitement of a new Macca album is the anti-Paul stuff that invaribly appears in print media. Not just the reviews but also the comments to the reviews. Lots of hate and jealousy out there. I just wished that I could have read some positive reviews prior to Guardian. Reading some good reviews beforehand and I might have taken Mr. Petridis with a grain of salt. Conversely, I came away furious. All I had to do is read the 1st paragraph and I knew already where this guy was heading. Same old, same old of prejudice against Paul. You will never get an objective review from these kinds of critics so in my mind the 3 stars (out of 5) means nothing about the quality of the album. The bad part however is that others read him and take his opinions as gospel. Instead of looking at "New" objectively, he is bringing up Teddy Boy and Paul's Granny music according to John (like he knew John intimately and was in all their sessions). He further suggests that Paul's early Solo and Wings' success was strictly on Beatle momentum and after that success waned he hasn't had a hit single in 26 years. He fails to mention that the whole industry and technology changed and that no aging rocker has hit singles anymore. It, of course, has nothing to do with the quality of Paul's compositions. He basically says that Paul hasn't had any good albums in his Post Beatle years because he can't find collaborators who will "drown out all his lesser ideas". Are you kidding me? I personally think that Paul has had 6 to 8 outstanding albums and many more good ones. If you can see through his prejudice, you know that this review cannot be subjective. It is sad that this guy gets an audience when he is not true to what a critic really should be...objective. The only good thing when he finally got to the album (even then he was still throwing shots at Macca) is that he admitted that he liked several songs including Appreciate, Early Days, Hosanna and Alligator. I have only heard 4 songs from "NEW" so far (none of them listed above) and I like them all. If I also like the additional 4 songs that Mr. Petridis likes, "NEW" already makes for an exciting album to look forward to. Hopefully, more reviews will be coming down the pike by critics that will look at the album and tracks objectively. Looking forward to seeing more!
Excellent points. I mean really at this stage why does a review of a McCartney record have to live so much in the past. What does not having a "hit" single in 26 yrs have to do with the quality of "New"? Has someone like Dylan ever had a #1 single - lol.
No, but he's come closer than you think, with several #2 singles, including Like a Rolling Stone and Lay Lady Lay. Looks like the last time he made the top 40 in the U.S. was Gotta Serve Somebody in 1979, which hit #24.
-
-
Bruce M.:
yankeefan7:
B J Conlee:
lisalou7:
Guardian Review, not so positive. 3/5 http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/oct/10/paul-mccartney-new-review Some very positive elements but not entirely convinced.
________________________________________________________ The only bad thing about the excitement of a new Macca album is the anti-Paul stuff that invaribly appears in print media. Not just the reviews but also the comments to the reviews. Lots of hate and jealousy out there. I just wished that I could have read some positive reviews prior to Guardian. Reading some good reviews beforehand and I might have taken Mr. Petridis with a grain of salt. Conversely, I came away furious. All I had to do is read the 1st paragraph and I knew already where this guy was heading. Same old, same old of prejudice against Paul. You will never get an objective review from these kinds of critics so in my mind the 3 stars (out of 5) means nothing about the quality of the album. The bad part however is that others read him and take his opinions as gospel. Instead of looking at "New" objectively, he is bringing up Teddy Boy and Paul's Granny music according to John (like he knew John intimately and was in all their sessions). He further suggests that Paul's early Solo and Wings' success was strictly on Beatle momentum and after that success waned he hasn't had a hit single in 26 years. He fails to mention that the whole industry and technology changed and that no aging rocker has hit singles anymore. It, of course, has nothing to do with the quality of Paul's compositions. He basically says that Paul hasn't had any good albums in his Post Beatle years because he can't find collaborators who will "drown out all his lesser ideas". Are you kidding me? I personally think that Paul has had 6 to 8 outstanding albums and many more good ones. If you can see through his prejudice, you know that this review cannot be subjective. It is sad that this guy gets an audience when he is not true to what a critic really should be...objective. The only good thing when he finally got to the album (even then he was still throwing shots at Macca) is that he admitted that he liked several songs including Appreciate, Early Days, Hosanna and Alligator. I have only heard 4 songs from "NEW" so far (none of them listed above) and I like them all. If I also like the additional 4 songs that Mr. Petridis likes, "NEW" already makes for an exciting album to look forward to. Hopefully, more reviews will be coming down the pike by critics that will look at the album and tracks objectively. Looking forward to seeing more!
Excellent points. I mean really at this stage why does a review of a McCartney record have to live so much in the past. What does not having a "hit" single in 26 yrs have to do with the quality of "New"? Has someone like Dylan ever had a #1 single - lol.
No, but he's come closer than you think, with several #2 singles, including Like a Rolling Stone and Lay Lady Lay. Looks like the last time he made the top 40 in the U.S. was Gotta Serve Somebody in 1979, which hit #24.
Not really because I expected the songs you mentioned to have charted very high. I guess the point is you never see in a Dylan review how well he has sold commercially. I don't recall in reviews of Elton's latest CD mention of his lack of commercial success lately.
-