"New" Reviews
-
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.
-
-
yankeefan7:
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.
Dylan has hit #1 twice in the last 10 years IIRC
-
Fly Paul Fly to Australia:
yankeefan7:
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.
Dylan has hit #1 twice in the last 10 years IIRC
#1 albums, but they were talking about singles. Paul has an outside chance at a #1 album this time around.
-
Where is that Rolling Stone review. Someone here said it got 4 Stars and is on the their list for Best Albums in 2013 but I haven't seen anything yet about this. Is is coming out in their next issue? When would that be?
-
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.
Well that one (The Guardian) was....tougher. Actually, the "reviewer/critic" wasn't so much reviewing the album as he was reviewing Paul. He seemed to want to be more positive (reading between the lines) but was afraid his core 'hip' audience would not accept that...or him, thereafter, should he be more positive. They wanted red meat, and that's what they got. One could tell from some of the vicious comments from readers who detested Paul. Their comments had nothing to do with the album. They hadn't heard it yet. It was just anti Paul. The critic was only too happy to oblige. He dragged out every old cliche about Paul he possibly could..lovs granny music, etc., etc. Pure trash.
-
B J Conlee:
Where is that Rolling Stone review. Someone here said it got 4 Stars and is on the their list for Best Albums in 2013 but I haven't seen anything yet about this. Is is coming out in their next issue? When would that be?
I believe the post said it is the next issue. I would expect to see it online by the end of the weekend.
-
cfergoid:
Daily Mail...5 stars! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2453614/Paul-McCartney-new-release-New-Album-week.html
How great for them to like it!
LOve this: Tuneful and poppy, but with an intuitive rock ?n? roll edge, New casts a wistful eye towards Macca?s illustrious past, but is far too vibrant and inventive to degenerate into pastiche.