EGYPT STATION
-
DavidP 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.
Your thinking is flawed. "Paul's first album would never have seen the light of day....were he not Paul the Beatle." Let's assume McCartney was never a member of the Beatles and in 1970 he was a new artist. He would have had a backlog of material he'd written such as Let it be, Long and Winding Road, Oh Darling, Lady Madonna, Yesterday, Maybe I'm Amazed, Every Night.....etc. Those songs would have been on his debut album and he'd have been a major 70s star and he'd have had plenty of material to bridge the gap from 1970 to 1973. The point is, a new artist wouldn't have the luxury of presenting a DIY home recording as a debut so that wouldn't have happened. Just like an unknown John Lennon would never have been able to spring the dreadful Two Virgins on the public. McCartney brought a backlog of material to the Beatles, and he'd have brought a backlog of material to his career as a new artist in 1970.
This is why counterfactuals are silly. You can't assume the Beatles never existed -- meaning his whole live would have been different -- and then assume he'd have written precisely the same songs in precisely the same way. You can imagine anything, but it's all fantasy.
-
Bruce M. wrote:
DavidP 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.
Your thinking is flawed. "Paul's first album would never have seen the light of day....were he not Paul the Beatle." Let's assume McCartney was never a member of the Beatles and in 1970 he was a new artist. He would have had a backlog of material he'd written such as Let it be, Long and Winding Road, Oh Darling, Lady Madonna, Yesterday, Maybe I'm Amazed, Every Night.....etc. Those songs would have been on his debut album and he'd have been a major 70s star and he'd have had plenty of material to bridge the gap from 1970 to 1973. The point is, a new artist wouldn't have the luxury of presenting a DIY home recording as a debut so that wouldn't have happened. Just like an unknown John Lennon would never have been able to spring the dreadful Two Virgins on the public. McCartney brought a backlog of material to the Beatles, and he'd have brought a backlog of material to his career as a new artist in 1970.
This is why counterfactuals are silly. You can't assume the Beatles never existed -- meaning his whole live would have been different -- and then assume he'd have written precisely the same songs in precisely the same way. You can imagine anything, but it's all fantasy.
Exactly! Like if Dot Rhone had not had a miscarriage in 1960, Paul would have been married and a father. I’m sure his dad would have expected him to have a “real” job and he wouldn’t have been able to go galavanting off to Hamburg. There might have been The Beatles, but without Paul. Just how successful would that have been? Not too much, I’d think. After George got kicked out for being underage, and Paul and Pete were deported, the group almost disbanded then! It is amazing to me how many things had to align just so for things to happen as they did!
-
Nancy R wrote: It is amazing to me how many things had to align just so for things to happen as they did!
That is so very true,Nancy. On a wider scale, every single person on this planet is only alive because of some incredible set of circumstances which has occured in the past. The odds of anyone of us being alive is no doubt greater than being struck by lightning three days in a row.
narrowing things down to Paul though, I have wondered what would have happened had his mother not died so young? Had she lived I suspect that there would have been no Beatles and everything that we know today of Pauls life and career since 1956 would be completely altered. He certainly would never have met Linda so Mary,Stella and James wouldn't exist...and John would probably still be alive,although he might have been involved in an accident and died even earlier than he did do. Brian might still be alive, and even George given that he might have had another job which didn't allow him to smoke so much.
Another train of thought,pure fantasy of course but interesting to mull over....if Paul was given the opportunity to borrow Dr Who's TARDIS and go back to 1956 with knowledge and medicine that would save his mother, would he use that opportunity? Would he save her even with the knowledge that everything that happened afterwards would happen differently?
-
Why would Paul never have gotten into music if his mother had lived? John's Aunt Mimi didn't stand in the way of John learning guitar and forming a band. Chances are Paul's mother would not have, either. Isn't that so? Paul still would have been very musical, looks like he inherited some of his ability and inclination from his musical father, like John did. John's father and grandfather.
-
Kestrel wrote:
Nancy R wrote: It is amazing to me how many things had to align just so for things to happen as they did!
That is so very true,Nancy. On a wider scale, every single person on this planet is only alive because of some incredible set of circumstances which has occured in the past. The odds of anyone of us being alive is no doubt greater than being struck by lightning three days in a row.
narrowing things down to Paul though, I have wondered what would have happened had his mother not died so young? Had she lived I suspect that there would have been no Beatles and everything that we know today of Pauls life and career since 1956 would be completely altered. He certainly would never have met Linda so Mary,Stella and James wouldn't exist...and John would probably still be alive,although he might have been involved in an accident and died even earlier than he did do. Brian might still be alive, and even George given that he might have had another job which didn't allow him to smoke so much.
Another train of thought,pure fantasy of course but interesting to mull over....if Paul was given the opportunity to borrow Dr Who's TARDIS and go back to 1956 with knowledge and medicine that would save his mother, would he use that opportunity? Would he save her even with the knowledge that everything that happened afterwards would happen differently?
Why do you think his mom living would change everything with regards to The Beatles?
-
I effed up...John's mum Julia was musical, too, sang well and played an instrument (can't recall which one, was it a uke?). Perhaps Paul's mummy, Mary, sang well, too. Paul has such a large extended fam that no doubt several, at least, were musically talented. I think that's in each Fab's DNA.
-
SusyLuvsPaul wrote:
I effed up...John's mum Julia was musical, too, sang well and played an instrument (can't recall which one, was it a uke?). Perhaps Paul's mummy, Mary, sang well, too. Paul has such a large extended fam that no doubt several, at least, were musically talented. I think that's in each Fab's DNA.
John’s mother played the banjo and taught John. That’s why he was playing banjo chords on his guitar when Paul met him!
-
Nancy R wrote:
Why do you think his mom living would change everything with regards to The Beatles?
Because she wanted Paul to become a teacher and go to university. Over the years several independant sources have stated that including the McCartneys next door neighbour at the time.
Of course,Paul could have rebelled and stuck to his ambition of becoming a professional musician...we'll never know either way what would have happened.
-
SusyLuvsPaul wrote:
Why would Paul never have gotten into music if his mother had lived? John's Aunt Mimi didn't stand in the way of John learning guitar and forming a band. Chances are Paul's mother would not have, either. Isn't that so?
That is true and maybe she would have supported his musical ambitions. Then again, it was his mothers death that propelled Paul into learning the guitar and becoming obsessed with the instrument. His brother Mike has said that Paul became a different person and wasn't easy to live with. So had their mother not died, Paul wouldn't have become that person...he became...if that makes sense? If you change just one event in history then everything that follows is altered. Sci-fi films are full of alternate time-lines.
-
Kestrel wrote:
Nancy R wrote:
Why do you think his mom living would change everything with regards to The Beatles?
Because she wanted Paul to become a teacher and go to university. Over the years several independant sources have stated that including the McCartneys next door neighbour at the time.
Of course,Paul could have rebelled and stuck to his ambition of becoming a professional musician...we'll never know either way what would have happened.
I see. Well, he only passed one A level (English) and I really think he would have rebelled due to John’s influence (he was the one who convinced him to skip out on his wire-coiling job to play their first lunchtime set at the Cavern, you know) Paul was very driven and I think eventually even his mum would have let him follow his passion (much like George’s mum did)
-
Kestrel wrote:
SusyLuvsPaul wrote:
Why would Paul never have gotten into music if his mother had lived? John's Aunt Mimi didn't stand in the way of John learning guitar and forming a band. Chances are Paul's mother would not have, either. Isn't that so?
That is true and maybe she would have supported his musical ambitions. Then again, it was his mothers death that propelled Paul into learning the guitar and becoming obsessed with the instrument. His brother Mike has said that Paul became a different person and wasn't easy to live with. So had their mother not died, Paul wouldn't have become that person...he became...if that makes sense? If you change just one event in history then everything that follows is altered. Sci-fi films are full of alternate time-lines.
He got a trumpet for his 14th birthday, June 18, 1956. He traded it in quite soon for a guitar. His mum died Oct. 31, 1956, so Paul was already well into the guitar (and piano) by then.
True that some things would have changed had she not died. But, I still think there would have been “The Beatles.”
-
Yes, also, Paul went nuts over the "new rock n roll sounds from America" of Elvis Presley, Little Richard, Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, The Everly Brothers, and there were probably more. He practiced and practiced and listened and grooved to it all and met George and John which kicked off what some call "The Greatest Music Story Ever Told" ! ! It all led up to "Egypt Station" 50 some years later and ongoing major sensational tours, and to his still writing new music, still inspired and loving music, doing his thing. Not resting on his laurels. One feels proud to be a fan.
-
SusyLuvsPaul wrote:
Yes, also, Paul went nuts over the "new rock n roll sounds from America" of Elvis Presley, Little Richard, Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, The Everly Brothers, and there were probably more. He practiced and practiced and listened and grooved to it all and met George and John which kicked off what some call "The Greatest Music Story Ever Told" ! ! It all led up to "Egypt Station" 50 some years later and ongoing major sensational tours, and to his still writing new music, still inspired and loving music, doing his thing. Not resting on his laurels. One feels proud to be a fan.
He knew George since he was 12 and George was 11 when they took the same bus to the Liverpool Institute.
Not sure if they knew each other before that. Maybe.
-
Nancy R wrote:
He got a trumpet for his 14th birthday, June 18, 1956. He traded it in quite soon for a guitar. His mum died Oct. 31, 1956, so Paul was already well into the guitar (and piano) by then.
Hmmm...that depends on how you would define "quite soon". Although Ian James was teaching Paul a few chords during the preceding months, Paul didn't swap his trumpet for his first guitar until July 1957. That's according to Mark Lewisohn's The Beatles 'Tune In' book. One thing is clear is that Paul had no interest in the guitar prior to his mums passing. Anyway, this is turning into a fascinating but ultimately pointless discussion as it can never be known what would or would not have happened had Mary McCartney not died when she did I personally don't think the Beatles would have happened without that tragic event occuring but who knows?
So back to Egypt Station...
-
Have you started to appreciate "Egypt Station", Kestrel? Do you like it more, now?
-
Kestrel wrote:
Nancy R wrote:
He got a trumpet for his 14th birthday, June 18, 1956. He traded it in quite soon for a guitar. His mum died Oct. 31, 1956, so Paul was already well into the guitar (and piano) by then.
Hmmm...that depends on how you would define "quite soon". Although Ian James was teaching Paul a few chords during the preceding months, Paul didn't swap his trumpet for his first guitar until July 1957. That's according to Mark Lewisohn's The Beatles 'Tune In' book. One thing is clear is that Paul had no interest in the guitar prior to his mums passing. Anyway, this is turning into a fascinating but ultimately pointless discussion as it can never be known what would or would not have happened had Mary McCartney not died when she did I personally don't think the Beatles would have happened without that tragic event occuring but who knows?
So back to Egypt Station...
Sorry to be OT, but I don’t see how he could have only gotten his guitar In July of 1957! He met John July 6, 1957 and already knew the chords and words to Twenty Flight Rock! (And many other songs!) I can’t get to my copy of Tune In right now without waking my mom, so will check tomorrow. It has always been my understanding that he began playing guitar in the summer of 1956 at age 14.
McCartney's father was a trumpet player and pianist, who had led Jim Mac's Jazz Band in the 1920s. He kept an upright piano in the front room, encouraged his sons to be musical and advised Paul to take piano lessons, but Paul preferred to learn by ear.[14][nb 1] At age 11, he encouraged Paul to audition for the Liverpool Cathedral choir but he was not accepted. Paul then joined the choir at St Barnabas' Church, Mossley Hill.[17] He gave Paul a nickel-plated trumpet for his fourteenth birthday, but when rock and roll became popular on Radio Luxembourg, McCartney traded it for a £15 FramusZenith (model 17) acoustic guitar, since he wanted to be able to sing while playing.[18] He found it difficult to play guitar right-handed, but after noticing a poster advertising a Slim Whitman concert and realising that Whitman played left-handed, he reversed the order of the strings.[19] McCartney wrote his first song, "I Lost My Little Girl", on the Zenith, and composed another early tune that would become "When I'm Sixty-Four" on the piano. American rhythm and blues influenced him, and Little Richard was his schoolboy idol; "Long Tall Sally" was the first song McCartney performed in public, at a Butlin's Fileyholiday camp talent competition.[20]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Lost_My_Little_Girl
That talks about how he wrote the song in 1956 using the Zenith guitar.
-
Nancy R wrote:
Sorry to be OT, but I don’t see how he could have only gotten his guitar In July of 1957! He met John July 6, 1957 and already knew the chords and words to Twenty Flight Rock! (And many other songs!) I can’t get to my copy of Tune In right now without waking my mom, so will check tomorrow. It has always been my understanding that he began playing guitar in the summer of 1956 at age 14.
Paul knew 'Long Tall Sally', and other songs, because that's what he had been learning on Ian James guitar. Paul was / is a natural musician and he was mastering the guitar very quickly over a course of a few months. Paul didn't write 'I Lost My Little Girl' on his Zenith until late 1957 at the earliest as he was inspired by his love for Buddy Holly's records, and the Crickets didn't have their first hit ('That'll Be The Day') in the UK until Septemmber / October 1957. The reference to Paul buying his first guitar is on page 364 (Volume 1) of Tune In. I have complete faith in Mark Lewisohn's research which I don't have with a lot of info written on Wikipedia.
-
SusyLuvsPaul wrote:
Have you started to appreciate "Egypt Station", Kestrel? Do you like it more, now?
To be honest Susy, I haven't even played it for the last couple of months. I played it a lot during those first couple of weeks or so but I didn't entirely take to it. I liked it, its a good album, but equally I was disappointed with it as I didn't find it as interesting as New or Chaos And Creation in The Backyard. It was more of an equal to Memory Almost Full, another album that I was never entirely keen on and seldom played. At the end of the day,its pointless wasting time playing an album that I don't really appreciate when there are albums out there I love and want to play all the time. Let's Eat Grandma's album 'I'm All ears' I've been playing every day in the car since last July and I was thrilled that it recently scooped up 'Album of the year' at the Q Awards. I will definately play Egypt Station again in the future (its only sitting on the shelf 6 feet behind me) and no doubt I'll enjoy it more for not having played it for a while but I doubt I'll ever see it as being one of Paul's finest efforts.
-
Kestrel wrote:
Nancy R wrote:
Sorry to be OT, but I don’t see how he could have only gotten his guitar In July of 1957! He met John July 6, 1957 and already knew the chords and words to Twenty Flight Rock! (And many other songs!) I can’t get to my copy of Tune In right now without waking my mom, so will check tomorrow. It has always been my understanding that he began playing guitar in the summer of 1956 at age 14.
Paul knew 'Long Tall Sally', and other songs, because that's what he had been learning on Ian James guitar. Paul was / is a natural musician and he was mastering the guitar very quickly over a course of a few months. Paul didn't write 'I Lost My Little Girl' on his Zenith until late 1957 at the earliest as he was inspired by his love for Buddy Holly's records, and the Crickets didn't have their first hit ('That'll Be The Day') in the UK until Septemmber / October 1957. The reference to Paul buying his first guitar is on page 364 (Volume 1) of Tune In. I have complete faith in Mark Lewisohn's research which I don't have with a lot of info written on Wikipedia.
Okay, luckily I have the unabridged version, so was able to find the page. The fact remains he knew how to play the guitar in 1956, right? Whose guitar he used is irrelevant. He was writing songs prior to his mum’s death (like the tune to When I’m 64) That was my main point. It’s not like there was nothing prior to the Zenith purchase in July 1957.
-
With the Zenith Mar. 8, 1958