EGYPT STATION
-
Beatles4Ever&Ever wrote:
joeysmith2 wrote:
70''s material overrated??? I can't believe what I'm reading. There's a damn good reason that Paul was the 2nd most successful solo act of the decade behind only Elton John. Being overplayed doesn't diminish how great the material is. Song for song BOTR is a melodic masterpiece and nothing Paul did post 80s can even compare.
Except Paul was getting lots of airplay largely because of the massive amount of good will left over from his Beatle days. The quality of the material may have been somewhat of a factor....but not the driving force. Had he come out of nowhere with his first two or three albums, he would have sunk. Being a Beatle carried him for years.
I know, Nancy, I busted out laughing when I read this, that "being a Beatle (Paul) carried him for years"--although Beatles 4Ever has a right to their opinion, and I respect that. It's just that it's so obvious McCartney is a musical prodigy, one of the extreme examples of an uber-talented musician, and not being a Beatle anymore could not and did not change that. I can visualize "Egypt Station" winning Album of the Year at the Grammys, and Kanye West had better not charge up to the stage and snatch it away from him ! (LOL)
-
A few posts ago, I wrote that Paul wrote "English Rain" and I meant to type "English Tea." (very twee) Lennon's famous line "if the sun don't come come you get a tan from standing in the English rain" made such a huge impression on me, I think that's why I mistakingly put that.
I just love "Egypt Station" It's so FAB !!!
-
SusyLuvsPaul wrote:
Beatles4Ever&Ever wrote:
joeysmith2 wrote:
70''s material overrated??? I can't believe what I'm reading. There's a damn good reason that Paul was the 2nd most successful solo act of the decade behind only Elton John. Being overplayed doesn't diminish how great the material is. Song for song BOTR is a melodic masterpiece and nothing Paul did post 80s can even compare.
Except Paul was getting lots of airplay largely because of the massive amount of good will left over from his Beatle days. The quality of the material may have been somewhat of a factor....but not the driving force. Had he come out of nowhere with his first two or three albums, he would have sunk. Being a Beatle carried him for years.
I know, Nancy, when I read tI busted out laughing his, that "being a Beatle (Paul) carried him for years"--although Beatles 4Ever has a right to their opinion, and I respect that. It's just that it's so obvious McCartney is a musical prodigy, one of the extreme examples of an uber-talented musician, and not being a Beatle anymore could not and did not change that. I can visualize "Egypt Station" winning Album of the Year at the Grammys, and Kanye West had better not charge up to the stage and snatch it away from him ! (LOL)
So happy that my commentary was so amusing to you that you "busted out laughing." Paul's first album would never have seen the light of day...even with "Maybe I'm Amazed"... were he not Paul the Beatle. HIs second, "Wild Life," had he found a company that would have released it, would have sunk. For the most part that album is an embarrassment. "Mary Had a Little Lamb," had any company relased it, would only have made Paul a total joke. Actually, no one would have heard it, so the joke would not have been on him. Had he not been who he was and had not accomplished so much with the Beatles, he would never have gotten off the ground (no pun intended) with that early largely mediocre output. Laugh all you want. Doesn't matter to me. Everyone in the world knows Paul would never have been had the opportunity to get around to "Band On The Run" were he not who he was.....Beatle Paul, which...like it or not.... got him airplay for years. Our opinions differ....wildly...no doubt about it. I love Paul to pieces and know he has great abilities. I seriously doubt any of that would have gotten him all that far with the shaky start he had....were he not who he was.
-
Beatles4Ever&Ever wrote:
SusyLuvsPaul wrote:
Beatles4Ever&Ever wrote:
joeysmith2 wrote:
70''s material overrated??? I can't believe what I'm reading. There's a damn good reason that Paul was the 2nd most successful solo act of the decade behind only Elton John. Being overplayed doesn't diminish how great the material is. Song for song BOTR is a melodic masterpiece and nothing Paul did post 80s can even compare.
Except Paul was getting lots of airplay largely because of the massive amount of good will left over from his Beatle days. The quality of the material may have been somewhat of a factor....but not the driving force. Had he come out of nowhere with his first two or three albums, he would have sunk. Being a Beatle carried him for years.
I know, Nancy, when I read tI busted out laughing his, that "being a Beatle (Paul) carried him for years"--although Beatles 4Ever has a right to their opinion, and I respect that. It's just that it's so obvious McCartney is a musical prodigy, one of the extreme examples of an uber-talented musician, and not being a Beatle anymore could not and did not change that. I can visualize "Egypt Station" winning Album of the Year at the Grammys, and Kanye West had better not charge up to the stage and snatch it away from him ! (LOL)
So happy that my commentary was so amusing to you that you "busted out laughing." Paul's first album would never have seen the light of day...even with "Maybe I'm Amazed"... were he not Paul the Beatle. HIs second, "Wild Life," had he found a company that would have released it, would have sunk. For the most part that album is an embarrassment. "Mary Had a Little Lamb," had any company relased it, would only have made Paul a total joke. Actually, no one would have heard it, so the joke would not have been on him. Had he not been who he was and had not accomplished so much with the Beatles, he would never have gotten off the ground (no pun intended) with that early largely mediocre output. Laugh all you want. Doesn't matter to me. Everyone in the world knows Paul would never have been had the opportunity to get around to "Band On The Run" were he not who he was.....Beatle Paul, which...like it or not.... got him airplay for years. Our opinions differ....wildly...no doubt about it. I love Paul to pieces and know he has great abilities. I seriously doubt any of that would have gotten him all that far with the shaky start he had....were he not who he was.
I hear you, but....Wild life was the 3rd album after the Beatles split. You seem to forget Ram. So in your logic Uncle Albert went to No.1 because Paul was an Ex -Beatle ? Same with My Love ? And why didn‘t John have a number 1 single if it‘s enough to be an Ex - Beatle ? I would agree that wild Life & Red Rose are weak albums ( though I love RRS) but so was Elton’s first album ever „Empty Sky“ and he went on to become the top act of the 70s.
-
Beatles4Ever&Ever wrote:
SusyLuvsPaul wrote:
Beatles4Ever&Ever wrote:
joeysmith2 wrote:
70''s material overrated??? I can't believe what I'm reading. There's a damn good reason that Paul was the 2nd most successful solo act of the decade behind only Elton John. Being overplayed doesn't diminish how great the material is. Song for song BOTR is a melodic masterpiece and nothing Paul did post 80s can even compare.
Except Paul was getting lots of airplay largely because of the massive amount of good will left over from his Beatle days. The quality of the material may have been somewhat of a factor....but not the driving force. Had he come out of nowhere with his first two or three albums, he would have sunk. Being a Beatle carried him for years.
I know, Nancy, when I read tI busted out laughing his, that "being a Beatle (Paul) carried him for years"--although Beatles 4Ever has a right to their opinion, and I respect that. It's just that it's so obvious McCartney is a musical prodigy, one of the extreme examples of an uber-talented musician, and not being a Beatle anymore could not and did not change that. I can visualize "Egypt Station" winning Album of the Year at the Grammys, and Kanye West had better not charge up to the stage and snatch it away from him ! (LOL)
So happy that my commentary was so amusing to you that you "busted out laughing." Paul's first album would never have seen the light of day...even with "Maybe I'm Amazed"... were he not Paul the Beatle. HIs second, "Wild Life," had he found a company that would have released it, would have sunk. For the most part that album is an embarrassment. "Mary Had a Little Lamb," had any company relased it, would only have made Paul a total joke. Actually, no one would have heard it, so the joke would not have been on him. Had he not been who he was and had not accomplished so much with the Beatles, he would never have gotten off the ground (no pun intended) with that early largely mediocre output. Laugh all you want. Doesn't matter to me. Everyone in the world knows Paul would never have been had the opportunity to get around to "Band On The Run" were he not who he was.....Beatle Paul, which...like it or not.... got him airplay for years. Our opinions differ....wildly...no doubt about it. I love Paul to pieces and know he has great abilities. I seriously doubt any of that would have gotten him all that far with the shaky start he had....were he not who he was.
I think this is largely correct, in part because I never joined the "Ram" cult. Of course, in this counterfactual universe, someone like McCartney would probably have never started a solo career with a homemade, slightly off-kilter album like "McCartney." He always had a business sense, and would have known he needed to prove himself. "McCartney" exists precisely because he was Beatle Paul and could have recorded himself reading the phone book and they'd have released it.
That said, I think the first few years of post-Beatle Paul were really rough, and he didn't really get it together till BOTR. And, good as some of the mid-period Wings stuff was, I still think his albums of the last 20 years or so are infinitely better. Yeah, I know that's sacrilege to some, but that's life.
-
"McCartney" his life is a bowl of cherries album, and "Ram" have been considered classics for many years, now, with "McCartney" even hailed, I've read, as ahead of its time. It's easy to forget it wasn't always so. "Wild Life" has its hits and its misses, but it does have its charms, and I'm going to listen to it again this weekend. I don't know if I'll start liking "I Am Your Singer"--it'll be interesting if I reappraise that "Wild Life" song favorably. There are at least three or four on there that I love. "Egypt Station" is regarded by many as one of his masterpieces or near-masterpieces, very highly regarded right at the start. I've never loved "Venus and Mars" as much as some others, but isn't it a 1970's work by him that's often raved about? He's often said to have hit his stride, in the 70's, with "Band on the Run." It was hailed as an instant classic, wasn't it. I just have never thought of his Seventies career as him coasting on being a former Beatle. Interesting way to perceive it. But Beatlemania was so obviously over, then.
It was only about three years ago, by the way, that I read in "Rolling Stone" that Bono called Wings "The best band of the Seventies." He knows a thing or two about music
-
Frank wrote:
Beatles4Ever&Ever wrote:
SusyLuvsPaul wrote:
Beatles4Ever&Ever wrote:
joeysmith2 wrote:
70''s material overrated??? I can't believe what I'm reading. There's a damn good reason that Paul was the 2nd most successful solo act of the decade behind only Elton John. Being overplayed doesn't diminish how great the material is. Song for song BOTR is a melodic masterpiece and nothing Paul did post 80s can even compare.
Except Paul was getting lots of airplay largely because of the massive amount of good will left over from his Beatle days. The quality of the material may have been somewhat of a factor....but not the driving force. Had he come out of nowhere with his first two or three albums, he would have sunk. Being a Beatle carried him for years.
I know, Nancy, when I read tI busted out laughing his, that "being a Beatle (Paul) carried him for years"--although Beatles 4Ever has a right to their opinion, and I respect that. It's just that it's so obvious McCartney is a musical prodigy, one of the extreme examples of an uber-talented musician, and not being a Beatle anymore could not and did not change that. I can visualize "Egypt Station" winning Album of the Year at the Grammys, and Kanye West had better not charge up to the stage and snatch it away from him ! (LOL)
So happy that my commentary was so amusing to you that you "busted out laughing." Paul's first album would never have seen the light of day...even with "Maybe I'm Amazed"... were he not Paul the Beatle. HIs second, "Wild Life," had he found a company that would have released it, would have sunk. For the most part that album is an embarrassment. "Mary Had a Little Lamb," had any company relased it, would only have made Paul a total joke. Actually, no one would have heard it, so the joke would not have been on him. Had he not been who he was and had not accomplished so much with the Beatles, he would never have gotten off the ground (no pun intended) with that early largely mediocre output. Laugh all you want. Doesn't matter to me. Everyone in the world knows Paul would never have been had the opportunity to get around to "Band On The Run" were he not who he was.....Beatle Paul, which...like it or not.... got him airplay for years. Our opinions differ....wildly...no doubt about it. I love Paul to pieces and know he has great abilities. I seriously doubt any of that would have gotten him all that far with the shaky start he had....were he not who he was.
I hear you, but....Wild life was the 3rd album after the Beatles split. You seem to forget Ram. So in your logic Uncle Albert went to No.1 because Paul was an Ex -Beatle ? Same with My Love ? And why didn‘t John have a number 1 single if it‘s enough to be an Ex - Beatle ? I would agree that wild Life & Red Rose are weak albums ( though I love RRS) but so was Elton’s first album ever „Empty Sky“ and he went on to become the top act of the 70s.
Well, yes, I did forget "Ram." That album has been rehabilitated, but was severly trashed by RS when it was forst released. I just didn't want to get into all that. It sold, however. It was Paul. So, yes, I think Paul was getting lots of airplay with "Uncle Albert..." and "My Love" in laarge part because of who he was....... I guess my point is: Paul did benefit greatly in the 1970's from all the great good will and love that still existed for the Beatles. The quality of the material wasn't the primary attraction...for several years. Just my opinion. It just sold. I automatically bought all their solo stuff regardless of the quality of the music because they were still and would always be Beatles to me.. I don't think I'm the only one. Now, I will say no more on this.
-
Yes, you have got a valid, interesting point, being a Beatle boosted Paul's reputation, visibility and "brand" immensely, and Macca's early post-Fabs music does have its obvious charms, so I have a point. Even though it took him a while to totally regain his footing after the trauma of losing the Beatles, he still came out with masterpiece songs like "Maybe I'm Amazed" and "Uncle Albert"-- and "Heart of the Country," which to me is a smooth rockabilly sounding total delight, a minor masterpiece. "Monkberry Moon Delight" sure makes a shrieking overwhelming impression which can't be denied. He was shrieking "I'm still here!"
"Too Many People" from "Ram" sounds like an instant classic. It is ! "That Would Be Something"--oooooh yeah "Meet you in the fallin' rain, Mama, I'll meet you in the fallin' rain" from "McCartney" and "Every Night" and "Junk" from "McCartney" have also been hailed as classics.
So, getting back to "Egypt Station." It boasts some instant classics too like "Hand in Hand," "Do It Now," "Despite Repeated Warnings," "People Want Peace," to my ears. "Dominoes," "Who Cares" and yes, "Fuh You" and "Confidant" and "Happy With You" and probably more. He's come full circle yet the journey is not complete. More triumphs ahead !!!
-
Other early Paul music notable highlights I didn't have time to mention include "Let 'Em In" "Beware My Love" "Arrow Through Me" "Good Night Tonight" "With a Little Luck" "Say Say Say" "Junior's Farm" "Hi Hi Hi" "Soily" "Old Siam, Sir" "Daytime/Nighttime Suffering" "Tomorrow" "Venus and Mars" "Letting Go" "My Love" and from "Red Rose Speedway" "One More Kiss" "When the Night" and "Medley" with "Hold Me Tight and Lazy Dynamite" among others.
So many that I wouldn't call his early post-Beatles songs "largely mediocre,"for sure.
-
I finally heard two bonus tracks on "Egypt Station"--"Get Started" and "Nothing For Free." These songs are very good. I really like them. Don't you guys?
-
Do you prefer the album "Egypt Station" or the album "New" if you had to choose between the two.
-
Bruce M. wrote:
Beatles4Ever&Ever wrote:
SusyLuvsPaul wrote:
Beatles4Ever&Ever wrote:
joeysmith2 wrote:
70''s material overrated??? I can't believe what I'm reading. There's a damn good reason that Paul was the 2nd most successful solo act of the decade behind only Elton John. Being overplayed doesn't diminish how great the material is. Song for song BOTR is a melodic masterpiece and nothing Paul did post 80s can even compare.
Except Paul was getting lots of airplay largely because of the massive amount of good will left over from his Beatle days. The quality of the material may have been somewhat of a factor....but not the driving force. Had he come out of nowhere with his first two or three albums, he would have sunk. Being a Beatle carried him for years.
I know, Nancy, when I read tI busted out laughing his, that "being a Beatle (Paul) carried him for years"--although Beatles 4Ever has a right to their opinion, and I respect that. It's just that it's so obvious McCartney is a musical prodigy, one of the extreme examples of an uber-talented musician, and not being a Beatle anymore could not and did not change that. I can visualize "Egypt Station" winning Album of the Year at the Grammys, and Kanye West had better not charge up to the stage and snatch it away from him ! (LOL)
So happy that my commentary was so amusing to you that you "busted out laughing." Paul's first album would never have seen the light of day...even with "Maybe I'm Amazed"... were he not Paul the Beatle. HIs second, "Wild Life," had he found a company that would have released it, would have sunk. For the most part that album is an embarrassment. "Mary Had a Little Lamb," had any company relased it, would only have made Paul a total joke. Actually, no one would have heard it, so the joke would not have been on him. Had he not been who he was and had not accomplished so much with the Beatles, he would never have gotten off the ground (no pun intended) with that early largely mediocre output. Laugh all you want. Doesn't matter to me. Everyone in the world knows Paul would never have been had the opportunity to get around to "Band On The Run" were he not who he was.....Beatle Paul, which...like it or not.... got him airplay for years. Our opinions differ....wildly...no doubt about it. I love Paul to pieces and know he has great abilities. I seriously doubt any of that would have gotten him all that far with the shaky start he had....were he not who he was.
I think this is largely correct, in part because I never joined the "Ram" cult. Of course, in this counterfactual universe, someone like McCartney would probably have never started a solo career with a homemade, slightly off-kilter album like "McCartney." He always had a business sense, and would have known he needed to prove himself. "McCartney" exists precisely because he was Beatle Paul and could have recorded himself reading the phone book and they'd have released it.
That said, I think the first few years of post-Beatle Paul were really rough, and he didn't really get it together till BOTR. And, good as some of the mid-period Wings stuff was, I still think his albums of the last 20 years or so are infinitely better. Yeah, I know that's sacrilege to some, but that's life.
I agree with you about his albums the last 20 years, they are better than his Wings music IMO. While CHAOS is not as commercial as BOTR, I think it is better album.
-
Beatles4Ever&Ever wrote:
Frank wrote:
Beatles4Ever&Ever wrote:
SusyLuvsPaul wrote:
Beatles4Ever&Ever wrote:
joeysmith2 wrote:
70''s material overrated??? I can't believe what I'm reading. There's a damn good reason that Paul was the 2nd most successful solo act of the decade behind only Elton John. Being overplayed doesn't diminish how great the material is. Song for song BOTR is a melodic masterpiece and nothing Paul did post 80s can even compare.
Except Paul was getting lots of airplay largely because of the massive amount of good will left over from his Beatle days. The quality of the material may have been somewhat of a factor....but not the driving force. Had he come out of nowhere with his first two or three albums, he would have sunk. Being a Beatle carried him for years.
I know, Nancy, when I read tI busted out laughing his, that "being a Beatle (Paul) carried him for years"--although Beatles 4Ever has a right to their opinion, and I respect that. It's just that it's so obvious McCartney is a musical prodigy, one of the extreme examples of an uber-talented musician, and not being a Beatle anymore could not and did not change that. I can visualize "Egypt Station" winning Album of the Year at the Grammys, and Kanye West had better not charge up to the stage and snatch it away from him ! (LOL)
So happy that my commentary was so amusing to you that you "busted out laughing." Paul's first album would never have seen the light of day...even with "Maybe I'm Amazed"... were he not Paul the Beatle. HIs second, "Wild Life," had he found a company that would have released it, would have sunk. For the most part that album is an embarrassment. "Mary Had a Little Lamb," had any company relased it, would only have made Paul a total joke. Actually, no one would have heard it, so the joke would not have been on him. Had he not been who he was and had not accomplished so much with the Beatles, he would never have gotten off the ground (no pun intended) with that early largely mediocre output. Laugh all you want. Doesn't matter to me. Everyone in the world knows Paul would never have been had the opportunity to get around to "Band On The Run" were he not who he was.....Beatle Paul, which...like it or not.... got him airplay for years. Our opinions differ....wildly...no doubt about it. I love Paul to pieces and know he has great abilities. I seriously doubt any of that would have gotten him all that far with the shaky start he had....were he not who he was.
I hear you, but....Wild life was the 3rd album after the Beatles split. You seem to forget Ram. So in your logic Uncle Albert went to No.1 because Paul was an Ex -Beatle ? Same with My Love ? And why didn‘t John have a number 1 single if it‘s enough to be an Ex - Beatle ? I would agree that wild Life & Red Rose are weak albums ( though I love RRS) but so was Elton’s first album ever „Empty Sky“ and he went on to become the top act of the 70s.
Well, yes, I did forget "Ram." That album has been rehabilitated, but was severly trashed by RS when it was forst released. I just didn't want to get into all that. It sold, however. It was Paul. So, yes, I think Paul was getting lots of airplay with "Uncle Albert..." and "My Love" in laarge part because of who he was....... I guess my point is: Paul did benefit greatly in the 1970's from all the great good will and love that still existed for the Beatles. The quality of the material wasn't the primary attraction...for several years. Just my opinion. It just sold. I automatically bought all their solo stuff regardless of the quality of the music because they were still and would always be Beatles to me.. I don't think I'm the only one. Now, I will say no more on this.
While McCartney was commercially successful in the early 70's, he was trashed critically. I was like you, bought the solo work from them early on because they were the Beatles. They started to fade and I got more selective in the mid to late 70's.
-
I suffer a nagging, resentful feeling that Macca isn't quite given his due here, at times. Not just being a Pollyanna...you can consider his entire body of work, look at all the songs. I mentioned quite a few gems in my previous recent posts. "Girls School" and "Morse Moose and the Grey Goose" and their ilk can seem light weight in the lyrics department, and still SOUND really good. And he always sounded sincere, singing. He's said before that he likes the "sound" of certain words, putting them together, above working on the meaning. That seemed his M.O. with "Wings." He partied a lot during that period ! One gets that impression. Those Beatle guys always valued having a good time, and what's wrong with that? They never liked being bored. Paul's lyrics overall have grown more imbued with meaning over the years and you can really tell that most recently with "Egypt Station"
-
SusyLuvsPaul wrote:
I suffer a nagging, resentful feeling that Macca isn't quite given his due here, at times. Not just being a Pollyanna...you can consider his entire body of work, look at all the songs. I mentioned quite a few gems in my previous recent posts. "Girls School" and "Morse Moose and the Grey Goose" and their ilk can seem light weight in the lyrics department, and still SOUND really good. And he always sounded sincere, singing. He's said before that he likes the "sound" of certain words, putting them together, above working on the meaning. That seemed his M.O. with "Wings." He partied a lot during that period ! One gets that impression. Those Beatle guys always valued having a good time, and what's wrong with that? They never liked being bored. Paul's lyrics overall have grown more imbued with meaning over the years and you can really tell that most recently with "Egypt Station"
"Not being given his due" seems to assume that all of his work deserves praise. The man has made plenty of extraordinarily beautiful -- and fun, and exhilarating -- music over the years. But he's also put out some crap, as has just about any artist with as extensive recorded output as Paul. That's life. Folks are just being honest. Fans don't need to be worshippers.
-
I didn't mean fans should "worship," some talk like much of his output post Fabs is "crap" and I just pointed out some songs I really appreciate and enjoy and admire from certain periods that were disparaged. And unfairly, I thought, cause I could think of a lot of really good songs from those times. But really, anyone can think anything they want. I just felt like expressing my personal opinion. I'm glad I can perceive real merit and worth where some others can't. All these differences of opinions and viewpoints are interesting and intriguing. It's only human to like it when one's own feelings and opinions are shared sometimes, agreed with. But to each his own. Or her own.
-
I've just been checking the UK albums chart and was a bit surprised to see that ES had already fallen out of the top 100. According to the stats, it entered the charts on 20th September, #3 being its highest position and remained in the top 100 for only another 4 weeks. I haven't seen the sales figures but I'm not expecting them to be very high. Hopefully Paul's three UK shows in mid-December might give the album a late boost but it does seem that ES will be an album thats quickly forgotten,unless it turns out to be his last album of course.
-
Kestrel wrote:
I've just been checking the UK albums chart and was a bit surprised to see that ES had already fallen out of the top 100. According to the stats, it entered the charts on 20th September, #3 being its highest position and remained in the top 100 for only another 4 weeks. I haven't seen the sales figures but I'm not expecting them to be very high. Hopefully Paul's three UK shows in mid-December might give the album a late boost but it does seem that ES will be an album thats quickly forgotten,unless it turns out to be his last album of course.
Maybe in the UK but my gut feeling it will get some Grammy nominations which may give it a boost in the US.
-
Hey it looks like some are auditioning for Rollung Stone, GQ or some music column. Everyone has their own opinion, but if I had those views I probably wouldn't be on this site; I would go to whatever person you have a higher opinion of and do my posting there, but that is just me.
I enjoy different albums, different songs and sounds. I enjoy Paul's music and always have. Sure he is getting older and even he knows the changes. I look forward to new songs and material. Even in today's music, most artists don't compare at all.
Say what you want it is interesting reading what others think.
Would Paul have made it as a solo act if not for The Beatles? He sure would. His material could be Beatle like with different players. He likely wanted to go a different path to be solo Paul with his own songs ... keeping it fresh with his own sound, his unique new band signature. And... he was better than the musical acts around him ( ha ha my opinion of course).
I have to play E.S. on random or scramble or isolate a song here and there. I seem to play it start to finish all the time.
Carry on.. . Enjoy.
-
The sales status of "Egypt Station" is unrelated to its cultural and musical standing of having a lot of classic songs. That's what I think. That "status" of the album is eternal and perpetual for as long as human civilization remains on the planet.
A boardie here said he thinks I'm "obsessed" with Paul Mc. If so, it's not in an unhealthy "stalker" type way, and it's shared by many...sometimes I get the impression the internet is one third Beatles, one third cats, and one third porn, LOL. I find Paul a very interesting person. There's a lot to him. He's intriguing to think about, to wonder about. And most of all, his music is fantastic to hear ! (smiley face)