McCartney
-
45 years ago today "McCartney" was released. Still love listening to it after all these years. GREAT album. http://ultimateclassicrock.com/paul-mccartney-solo-debut/
-
Yep, great album, it has much of the musical mind of McCartney, great songs and little ditties, classics like "Maybe I'm a Amazed" and experiments that works in the context of the album like "Kreen-Akrore". Playground "McCartney". Love it!
-
A good album, not a great one. The best tracks are wonderful, and the informal feel is nice, but nearly half of it feels unfinished, like musical doodling. But Maybe I'm Amazed makes any lapses forgivable.
-
Maybe I'm Amazed alone was enough. Just a brilliant song. Love "Junk" (a Beatles song, really). I think it is a cute album, and rather clever and bold for its time, but really, when you're about to launch yourself off the greatest band of all time, you need something better. And as I said, I love "Junk", but to also have a "singalong" version is pushing it. A lot of half-baked songs. Some good songs that would never have made their way on to a Beatles album, unless it was a double. And others that would only make it on to a triple Beatles treat. I've often imagined my own special compilation of the ex-Beatles' debut albums, consigned it as their release, and I reckon Paul (whilst owning the first single with the brilliant Maybe I'm Amazed) would really only have 3-4 songs worthy of a 14-song album. That, for me, makes it a little underwhelming. A fine album, but underwhelming.
-
A little weak coming off the power of Abbey Road and just before Let It Be came out, and perhaps the weakest of the four solos released by the soon to be ex-Beatles that year of 1970. Even so, it still has the great Maybe I'm Amazed and also Every Night. Junk and Teddy Boy were also pretty good. The cover is great too. Three stars.
-
How could you consider Ringo's "Sentimental" thingie album better than "McCartney" Randy ? Don't mean any harm by it, just wondering
-
The first indie pop album ever recorded. Melodies galore with experiments throughout. In retrospect brilliant but daring as everyone expected another majestic Abbey Road. I still think he should have put out his own version of Goodbye on the album as it fit the tone and message.
-
beatlesfanrandy:
A little weak coming off the power of Abbey Road and just before Let It Be came out, and perhaps the weakest of the four solos released by the soon to be ex-Beatles that year of 1970. Even so, it still has the great Maybe I'm Amazed and also Every Night. Junk and Teddy Boy were also pretty good. The cover is great too. Three stars.
Totally agree. But I would give 3,5 stars. I really enjoy 'Momma Miss America' and 'Man We Was Lonely'. A basic instrumentation and a basic soft-melodic song, but pretty good to my ears.
-
SusyLuvsPaul:
How could you consider Ringo's "Sentimental" thingie album better than "McCartney" Randy ? Don't mean any harm by it, just wondering
I was referring to Beaucoups of Blues, a pretty highly regarded album by Ringo. But I was more referring to Paul's own standards, matching his work on both Abbey Road and Let It Be. But also with John's Plastic Ono Band and George's All Things Must Pass, as well as Beaucoups of Blues. Considering all of those, McCartney didn't quite live up to expectations. I had a thought though, that if you took the best 4 songs from McCartney, Plastic Ono Band, All Things Must Pass, and Ringo's song Beaucoups of Blues, you'd have one great Beatles album. Of course by then it was too late.
-
McCartney was Paul getting back to basics, which is what it sounds like. It is cool!
-
RMartinez:
McCartney was Paul getting back to basics, which is what it sounds like. It is cool!
I think McCartney is a very good album too. "Maybe I'm Amazed" is obviously a great song and I think the rest of the songs are very listenable too. It deserves more than a three star rating in my estimation.
-
RMartinez:
McCartney was Paul getting back to basics, which is what it sounds like. It is cool!
Getting back to basics doesn't need to mean forgetting about decent songwriting. "That Would Be Something" is a fragment extended to song length, and "Singalong Junk" is just filler, to pick 2 obvious examples.
-
Bruce M.:
RMartinez:
McCartney was Paul getting back to basics, which is what it sounds like. It is cool!
Getting back to basics doesn't need to mean forgetting about decent songwriting. "That Would Be Something" is a fragment extended to song length, and "Singalong Junk" is just filler, to pick 2 obvious examples.
No argument from me. But that was where he was at that point, pretty broken and incomplete. It shows in the album.
-
Bruce M.:
RMartinez:
McCartney was Paul getting back to basics, which is what it sounds like. It is cool!
Getting back to basics doesn't need to mean forgetting about decent songwriting. "That Would Be Something" is a fragment extended to song length, and "Singalong Junk" is just filler, to pick 2 obvious examples.
Uhm, I think he knew a thing or two about "decent" songwriting. That Would Be Something is one of the two songs George said at the time he liked in the album btw (along with the obvious one). If that's a fragment extended to song lenth then I guess so is I Want You...
-
That Would Be Something is not even in the same universe as I Want You (She's So Heavy). I Want You is John's primordial scream of desire for the woman he loves. That Would Be Something is a ditty, pleasant and likeable, like Bip Bop, but just a cute bit of doodling.
-
I enjoy Singalong Junk, it's a good track, but Man We Was Lonely and Momma Miss America are my favourites, along with Maybe I'm Amazed of course. I suppose it does have an experimental feel to it with the short, snippet tracks, but personally I can't see much to criticise.
-
I think Paul meant for it to be experimental. I really like the album. He definitely should have released Maybe I'm Amazed in 1970 as a single, though! Would have gone to #1!
-
I don't understand how some people can like McCartney and not like McCartney II. The parallels are right there in your face.
-
still think McCartney was dark with some of the stuff Paul was going thru at the time. It holds up where as MC2 is stoned and made up...I like that more now ,,but STILL love the 1st one.
-
audi:
I don't understand how some people can like McCartney and not like McCartney II. The parallels are right there in your face.
Perhaps in some parallel universe. McCartney is decent but flawed, the flaws made up for by some glorious moments. McCartney II ranges from pretty good (and not much of that) to fingernails-on-a-blackboard unlistenable. Seriously, my idea of Hell would be being forced to listen to Temporary Secretary, Nobody Knows and Bogie Music on an endless loop.
