McCartney 3?
-
Nancy R wrote:
Beatles4Ever wrote:
Yankeefan2 wrote:
Kestrel wrote:
Congratulations to Paul on his 1st UK #1 album in over 30 years. And he did it without the aid of multiple studios in multiple countries, without multiple producers and multiple engineers and multiple session musicians. In the main,he did it all himself. Hopefully he will keep that all in mind with his next album.
He has had other albums like CHAOS that were as good if not better than "McCartney III" and just did not happen to sell as well but that has nothing to do with using producers/musicians. Nobody can tell me that anybody has ever done a better job producing McCartney than Nigel Godrich.
Calm down. That wasn't her point. It's not a contest on who can best produce Paul's music.
Just an fyi, Kestrel is a guy.
Seriously??? After all this time on this site I just find that out? Oops. I saw the photo of "her" on his comment site and made an assumption. I know I should never assume anything, but.... Then I guess you're not Paul McCartney either, Nancy! "Love Me Do!" Thanks for the heads up!!!
-
B J Conlee wrote:
The last few mornings when I wake up, the first thing I've been doing is listening to McCartney 3. This morning (Christmas morning) I did the same thing. Obviously, I love, love all the tracks where I gave a perfect "10" score, but this morning I also really liked a few tracks where I gave a "9" score. Here are just a couple comments about these songs:
Lavatory Lil 9 - After the seriousness of "Women and Wives", this track provided just the right amount of a "lighter" touch. I love the rocking guitars, the brief guitar" solo" in the middle and the "fun" of the lyrics. It was the perfect time for this wacky song in my opinion.
The Kiss of Venus 9 - Hearing thie song this morning reminded me how " close" I came for giving McCartney 3 and this specific track another perfect score. I love the lyrics and especially the bridge portion of the song and Paul's use of the Harpsichord. Just love this portion of "The Kiss of Venus". Again, this was the perfect time for this track because it provided a "lightness" after the "heaviness" of the previous great track "Slidin".
Deep Down 9 - I loved this "jam" track this morning. It's a tad long but I love the R&B "groove" on this song. I also love Paul's soulful vocals and I think the "horns" do a great job of breaking up the repetitiveness of the song. I don't know much about picking "singles" for McCartney 3but I hope Paul and Capitol release "Deep Down" as a single specifically to radio stations that appeal to a "younger audience" who like R&B, Hip Hop and even Rap. I think it potentially could appeal to this "non-Beatle" type demographic.
When I think about the 11 tracks on McCartney 3, I gave almost all of them either a perfect scores (10's) or close to perfect (9's). Only 2 tracks received below a "9" score from me. That was the opener "Long Tailed Winter Bird" which was a tad too long in my opinion and "Deep Deep Feeling" which was "too long" and in my opinion should have been edited down a couple more minutes. I say that knowing that many fans here love "Deep Deep Feeling". I realize that music is subjective and there will be differences of opinion regarding Paul's songs and albums.
Because of the reasons above, I lthink McCartney 3 (my opinion only) is in the" Top 5" of all of Paul's Post Beatles' Albums. My Top 5 List at the moment is: 1) Chaos and Creation in the Backyard 2) Band on the Run 3) Flaming Pie 4) Egypt Station and 5) McCartney 3.
Loving McCartney 3 and I Thank God for the beautiful Christmas Present Paul gave us in 2020.
Of the 4 bonus tracks, I'm loving cut 4, the "Slidin" Dusseldorf Jam....whatever that means. I believe Paul's band plays on it. Great sounding track. Wish I could just buy it now and not have to wait until Paul finally makes it available on other than the Japanese CD. Why do they always seem to get the best...or at least everything...right from the get-go????
-
"This is why I consider Paul's Post Beatles' and Solo career to be so underrated for the most part. Many Beatle fans and especially many critics/writers who became "the self proclaimed experts on the history of the Bealtes" kept promoting that John after his horrible death was "the" Beatles. I think of the famous writer Phillip Norman who falsely proclained in his international best seller "Shout" that John was 80% of the Beatles. What a total lack of respect that Mr. Norman gave to Ringo, George and especially Paul. I loved John and he was an enormous talent (especially lyrically) but Paul is now showing especailly with his latest album McCartney 3 that he was/is every bit the genius that John was. That is why I'm so happy for Paul with McCartney 3. It's a brilliant album but just one of many (Band on the Run, Ram, Venus and Mars, Tug of War, Flowers in the Dirt, Flaming Pie, Chaos and Creation, New, Egypt Station etc) great Post Beatles' albums that Paul has created. This is why and along with the reasons given above that Paul's "full" Musical Career has been, believe it or not, relatively "underrated" in my opinion."
BJ, I think his solo career and especially the last 25 years have not been really underrated by the critics. Review after review of his albums have all been very positive. Critics have marvelled how creative he has been especially at his age. They have also heaped praise on him for his live concerts and also are amazed that he plays almost 3 hours. Sadly, I think it is the general public that he is extremely underrated. I have stated it before that most people are Beatle Paul fans and basically think the rest of his music the last 40 years is junk or do not even attempt o give it a try.
John Lennon was a great songwriter and had a fantastic rock and roll voice. I am not going to knock him because I liked Paul McCartney better. I do think it is fair to say that McCartney was a better musician than Lennon, played more instruments and was better at his main instrument than Lennon. You will always see McCartney rated as one of the top bass players, you never really hear about Lennon being a great guitarist. (if I am wrong please correct me). I liked some of Lennon's solo work but IMO it was not any better than anything McCartney did with Wings. Sadly, we will never know what Lennon would have been capable of writing and that is a damn shame. Finally, I will use a sports analogy to describe the Beatles. They were a great "team" and the solo parts were not equal to the sum of the group.
-
Beatles4Ever wrote:
Seriously??? After all this time on this site I just find that out? Oops. I saw the photo of "her" on his comment site and made an assumption. I know I should never assume anything, but.... Then I guess you're not Paul McCartney either, Nancy! "Love Me Do!" Thanks for the heads up!!!
Yes, I made the same assumption too in the beginning and I finally PMed and asked! (and no, I'm not Paul incognito, but I wish I had his money!)
-
Yankeefan2 wrote:
"This is why I consider Paul's Post Beatles' and Solo career to be so underrated for the most part. Many Beatle fans and especially many critics/writers who became "the self proclaimed experts on the history of the Bealtes" kept promoting that John after his horrible death was "the" Beatles. I think of the famous writer Phillip Norman who falsely proclained in his international best seller "Shout" that John was 80% of the Beatles. What a total lack of respect that Mr. Norman gave to Ringo, George and especially Paul. I loved John and he was an enormous talent (especially lyrically) but Paul is now showing especailly with his latest album McCartney 3 that he was/is every bit the genius that John was. That is why I'm so happy for Paul with McCartney 3. It's a brilliant album but just one of many (Band on the Run, Ram, Venus and Mars, Tug of War, Flowers in the Dirt, Flaming Pie, Chaos and Creation, New, Egypt Station etc) great Post Beatles' albums that Paul has created. This is why and along with the reasons given above that Paul's "full" Musical Career has been, believe it or not, relatively "underrated" in my opinion."
BJ, I think his solo career and especially the last 25 years have not been really underrated by the critics. Review after review of his albums have all been very positive. Critics have marvelled how creative he has been especially at his age. They have also heaped praise on him for his live concerts and also are amazed that he plays almost 3 hours. Sadly, I think it is the general public that he is extremely underrated. I have stated it before that most people are Beatle Paul fans and basically think the rest of his music the last 40 years is junk or do not even attempt o give it a try.
John Lennon was a great songwriter and had a fantastic rock and roll voice. I am not going to knock him because I liked Paul McCartney better. I do think it is fair to say that McCartney was a better musician than Lennon, played more instruments and was better at his main instrument than Lennon. You will always see McCartney rated as one of the top bass players, you never really hear about Lennon being a great guitarist. (if I am wrong please correct me). I liked some of Lennon's solo work but IMO it was not any better than anything McCartney did with Wings. Sadly, we will never know what Lennon would have been capable of writing and that is a damn shame. Finally, I will use a sports analogy to describe the Beatles. They were a great "team" and the solo parts were not equal to the sum of the group.
Totally agree with you Yankeefan!
-
Yankeefan2 wrote:
He can produce himself very well as you pointed out, I just think somebody like Godrich did excellent job and was not afraid to tell him his songs were not good enough. You dont get this type of feedback when you produce yourself IMO and it can lead to better album. No big deal either way, differences make the world go round -lol.
I totally agree that Nigel Godrich did a great job and I think there was a lot of mutual respect between Nigel and Paul. I would still maintain though that the more producers,engineers.studios, musicians that are added to the mix, the more Paul's work becomes diluted. What I love about McCartney lll is just how 'together' (for lack of a better word) the album sounds. I'll need to wait a good year to reflect overall on its quality but at the moment,based on pure enjoyment, I consider it to be one of Paul's strongest albums since the Beatles.
-
Nancy R wrote:
Beatles4Ever wrote:
Seriously??? After all this time on this site I just find that out? Oops. I saw the photo of "her" on his comment site and made an assumption. I know I should never assume anything, but.... Then I guess you're not Paul McCartney either, Nancy! "Love Me Do!" Thanks for the heads up!!!
Yes, I made the same assumption too in the beginning and I finally PMed and asked! (and no, I'm not Paul incognito, but I wish I had his money!)
Despite the supposed differences between the sexes, its interesting that when it comes to writing, the 'difference' can't be that obvious. Yep, I'm definitely a guy,....at least I was when I last looked !!
-
Newest Billboard article has McCartney III at Number 2 for the week ending Dec 24th.
"Paul McCartney’s McCartney III debuts at No. 2 on the Billboard 200 with 105,000 equivalent album units earned. Of that sum, 102,000 are in album sales – which also makes it the top-selling album of the week, as it debuts at No. 1 on the Top Album Sales chart"
The article also has McCartney III data from Nielson Music
-
Yankeefan2 wrote:
"This is why I consider Paul's Post Beatles' and Solo career to be so underrated for the most part. Many Beatle fans and especially many critics/writers who became "the self proclaimed experts on the history of the Bealtes" kept promoting that John after his horrible death was "the" Beatles. I think of the famous writer Phillip Norman who falsely proclained in his international best seller "Shout" that John was 80% of the Beatles. What a total lack of respect that Mr. Norman gave to Ringo, George and especially Paul. I loved John and he was an enormous talent (especially lyrically) but Paul is now showing especailly with his latest album McCartney 3 that he was/is every bit the genius that John was. That is why I'm so happy for Paul with McCartney 3. It's a brilliant album but just one of many (Band on the Run, Ram, Venus and Mars, Tug of War, Flowers in the Dirt, Flaming Pie, Chaos and Creation, New, Egypt Station etc) great Post Beatles' albums that Paul has created. This is why and along with the reasons given above that Paul's "full" Musical Career has been, believe it or not, relatively "underrated" in my opinion."
BJ, I think his solo career and especially the last 25 years have not been really underrated by the critics. Review after review of his albums have all been very positive. Critics have marvelled how creative he has been especially at his age. They have also heaped praise on him for his live concerts and also are amazed that he plays almost 3 hours. Sadly, I think it is the general public that he is extremely underrated. I have stated it before that most people are Beatle Paul fans and basically think the rest of his music the last 40 years is junk or do not even attempt o give it a try.
John Lennon was a great songwriter and had a fantastic rock and roll voice. I am not going to knock him because I liked Paul McCartney better. I do think it is fair to say that McCartney was a better musician than Lennon, played more instruments and was better at his main instrument than Lennon. You will always see McCartney rated as one of the top bass players, you never really hear about Lennon being a great guitarist. (if I am wrong please correct me). I liked some of Lennon's solo work but IMO it was not any better than anything McCartney did with Wings. Sadly, we will never know what Lennon would have been capable of writing and that is a damn shame. Finally, I will use a sports analogy to describe the Beatles. They were a great "team" and the solo parts were not equal to the sum of the group.
Great, great post Yankeefan.
I agree with you that the critics over the last 25 years have been most favorable towards Paul's Solo Career. I think the main reason for that result is that many of these critics are younger in general. They are most likely to give Paul's music a "fair" listen. Being my age 72, I remember and especially growing up near the New York City and Philadlephia the disdain that many of the music critics had for Paul McCartney. These were older (my age) Beatle writers that "loved" John Lennon. John couldn't do anything wrong especially when the Beatle broke up. They also blamed Paul for the breakup. Paul to these critics was the polar opposite of Paul. He was a "family" man and they considered him much more conservative. They in general thought that John was the real talent in the Beatles just like Phillop Norman said in his book "Shout". But you are right, the young critics didn't grow up with the Beatkes and have a much more "objective" look at his music genius. Some of these older music critics are still on the Sirius channel (especially the Beatles Channel) because of their name and are still spouting these ideas about Paul. The way John died equally exacerbated this false narrative that John was the creative voice within the Beatles and Paul was the lightweight of the group. That is why I'm starting to think that McCartney 3 is going to really change how the population in general feel about Paul. Because of how good McCartney 3 is, these "old time" Beatle journalists aren't going to continue to perpetuate that John was the genius in the Beatles. As I said, Paul was every bit as much of a music genius as John. That being said, I do agree with your last point totally that the Beatles individually were not as great as the sum of their parts even as good as Paul is.
-
B J Conlee wrote:
Yankeefan2 wrote:
"This is why I consider Paul's Post Beatles' and Solo career to be so underrated for the most part. Many Beatle fans and especially many critics/writers who became "the self proclaimed experts on the history of the Bealtes" kept promoting that John after his horrible death was "the" Beatles. I think of the famous writer Phillip Norman who falsely proclained in his international best seller "Shout" that John was 80% of the Beatles. What a total lack of respect that Mr. Norman gave to Ringo, George and especially Paul. I loved John and he was an enormous talent (especially lyrically) but Paul is now showing especailly with his latest album McCartney 3 that he was/is every bit the genius that John was. That is why I'm so happy for Paul with McCartney 3. It's a brilliant album but just one of many (Band on the Run, Ram, Venus and Mars, Tug of War, Flowers in the Dirt, Flaming Pie, Chaos and Creation, New, Egypt Station etc) great Post Beatles' albums that Paul has created. This is why and along with the reasons given above that Paul's "full" Musical Career has been, believe it or not, relatively "underrated" in my opinion."
BJ, I think his solo career and especially the last 25 years have not been really underrated by the critics. Review after review of his albums have all been very positive. Critics have marvelled how creative he has been especially at his age. They have also heaped praise on him for his live concerts and also are amazed that he plays almost 3 hours. Sadly, I think it is the general public that he is extremely underrated. I have stated it before that most people are Beatle Paul fans and basically think the rest of his music the last 40 years is junk or do not even attempt o give it a try.
John Lennon was a great songwriter and had a fantastic rock and roll voice. I am not going to knock him because I liked Paul McCartney better. I do think it is fair to say that McCartney was a better musician than Lennon, played more instruments and was better at his main instrument than Lennon. You will always see McCartney rated as one of the top bass players, you never really hear about Lennon being a great guitarist. (if I am wrong please correct me). I liked some of Lennon's solo work but IMO it was not any better than anything McCartney did with Wings. Sadly, we will never know what Lennon would have been capable of writing and that is a damn shame. Finally, I will use a sports analogy to describe the Beatles. They were a great "team" and the solo parts were not equal to the sum of the group.
Great, great post Yankeefan.
I agree with you that the critics over the last 25 years have been most favorable towards Paul's Solo Career. I think the main reason for that result is that many of these critics are younger in general. They are most likely to give Paul's music a "fair" listen. Being my age 72, I remember and especially growing up near the New York City and Philadlephia the disdain that many of the music critics had for Paul McCartney. These were older (my age) Beatle writers that "loved" John Lennon. John couldn't do anything wrong especially when the Beatle broke up. Paul to these critics was the opposite of Paul. He was a "family" man and considered more conservative. They in general thought that John was the real talent in the Beatles just like Phillop Norman said in his book "Shout". But you are right, the young critics didn't grow up with the Beatkes and have a much more "objective" look at his music genius. Some of these same music critics who I still hear on the Sirius channel (especially the Beatles Channel) and are still spouting these ideas. The way John died equally exacerbated this false narrative that John was the creative voice within the Beatles and Paul was the lightweight of the group. That is why I'm starting to think that McCartney 3 is going to really change how the population in general is going to turn things around for Paul. Paul and not these "old time" journalists are going to perpetuate that John was the genius in the Beatles. As I said, Paul was every bit as much of a music genius as John. This being said, I do agree with your last point totally that the Beatles individually were not as great as the sum of their parts.
The classic example of what you so correctly pointed out was the "Take It Away" podcasts. Two younger guys taking objective look at McCartney's solo music and not judging it against the Beatles. Wished we could have gotten podcast about "McCartney III" but due to Ryan's tragic death at 34, that may not happen.
-
Yankeefan2 wrote:
B J Conlee wrote:
Yankeefan2 wrote:
"This is why I consider Paul's Post Beatles' and Solo career to be so underrated for the most part. Many Beatle fans and especially many critics/writers who became "the self proclaimed experts on the history of the Bealtes" kept promoting that John after his horrible death was "the" Beatles. I think of the famous writer Phillip Norman who falsely proclained in his international best seller "Shout" that John was 80% of the Beatles. What a total lack of respect that Mr. Norman gave to Ringo, George and especially Paul. I loved John and he was an enormous talent (especially lyrically) but Paul is now showing especailly with his latest album McCartney 3 that he was/is every bit the genius that John was. That is why I'm so happy for Paul with McCartney 3. It's a brilliant album but just one of many (Band on the Run, Ram, Venus and Mars, Tug of War, Flowers in the Dirt, Flaming Pie, Chaos and Creation, New, Egypt Station etc) great Post Beatles' albums that Paul has created. This is why and along with the reasons given above that Paul's "full" Musical Career has been, believe it or not, relatively "underrated" in my opinion."
BJ, I think his solo career and especially the last 25 years have not been really underrated by the critics. Review after review of his albums have all been very positive. Critics have marvelled how creative he has been especially at his age. They have also heaped praise on him for his live concerts and also are amazed that he plays almost 3 hours. Sadly, I think it is the general public that he is extremely underrated. I have stated it before that most people are Beatle Paul fans and basically think the rest of his music the last 40 years is junk or do not even attempt o give it a try.
John Lennon was a great songwriter and had a fantastic rock and roll voice. I am not going to knock him because I liked Paul McCartney better. I do think it is fair to say that McCartney was a better musician than Lennon, played more instruments and was better at his main instrument than Lennon. You will always see McCartney rated as one of the top bass players, you never really hear about Lennon being a great guitarist. (if I am wrong please correct me). I liked some of Lennon's solo work but IMO it was not any better than anything McCartney did with Wings. Sadly, we will never know what Lennon would have been capable of writing and that is a damn shame. Finally, I will use a sports analogy to describe the Beatles. They were a great "team" and the solo parts were not equal to the sum of the group.
Great, great post Yankeefan.
I agree with you that the critics over the last 25 years have been most favorable towards Paul's Solo Career. I think the main reason for that result is that many of these critics are younger in general. They are most likely to give Paul's music a "fair" listen. Being my age 72, I remember and especially growing up near the New York City and Philadlephia the disdain that many of the music critics had for Paul McCartney. These were older (my age) Beatle writers that "loved" John Lennon. John couldn't do anything wrong especially when the Beatle broke up. Paul to these critics was the opposite of Paul. He was a "family" man and considered more conservative. They in general thought that John was the real talent in the Beatles just like Phillop Norman said in his book "Shout". But you are right, the young critics didn't grow up with the Beatkes and have a much more "objective" look at his music genius. Some of these same music critics who I still hear on the Sirius channel (especially the Beatles Channel) and are still spouting these ideas. The way John died equally exacerbated this false narrative that John was the creative voice within the Beatles and Paul was the lightweight of the group. That is why I'm starting to think that McCartney 3 is going to really change how the population in general is going to turn things around for Paul. Paul and not these "old time" journalists are going to perpetuate that John was the genius in the Beatles. As I said, Paul was every bit as much of a music genius as John. This being said, I do agree with your last point totally that the Beatles individually were not as great as the sum of their parts.
The classic example of what you so correctly pointed out was the "Take It Away" podcasts. Two younger guys taking objective look at McCartney's solo music and not judging it against the Beatles. Wished we could have gotten podcast about "McCartney III" but due to Ryan's tragic death at 34, that may not happen.
You are so right about the "Take It Away" podcasts. Such a shame about Ryan's tragic death.
-
Kestrel wrote:
Nancy R wrote:
Beatles4Ever wrote:
Seriously??? After all this time on this site I just find that out? Oops. I saw the photo of "her" on his comment site and made an assumption. I know I should never assume anything, but.... Then I guess you're not Paul McCartney either, Nancy! "Love Me Do!" Thanks for the heads up!!!
Yes, I made the same assumption too in the beginning and I finally PMed and asked! (and no, I'm not Paul incognito, but I wish I had his money!)
Despite the supposed differences between the sexes, its interesting that when it comes to writing, the 'difference' can't be that obvious. Yep, I'm definitely a guy,....at least I was when I last looked !!
No, there was never anything in your comments that would indicate your sex. I let the photo influence me on your gender There was no way of really knowing...and it didn't/doesn't matter anyway. But thanks . Now, I guess when I read your comments, I'll find out if I read anything more into them than what's there!
-
McCartney III debuts at Number ONE on Billboard's Top Album Sales Chart Week ending Jan 2, 2021
And Paul celebrates on twitter
-
I feel sorry for the rest of you "Paul maniacs" on this Site. As you've proably seen, I love McCartney 3. There was only 1 track I didn't like (Deep Deep Feeling) and now I'm starting to get into that song. That and "Deep Down" are both too long but I think they are vey good tracks anyway. The reason I like McCartney 3 so much is because there isn't one track that is a clunker or stinker. I loved Tug of War but I never liked "What That You're Doing" (the Paul/Stevie Wonder collaboration song )" nor did I like "Fuh You" on Egypt Station. I also didn't like "Reallly Love You" (the jam song on Flaming Pie). All of those songs kind of destroyed those respective albums for me. On McCartney 3, neither Deep Deep Feeling or "Deep Down are clunkers. The are too long but they are good songs and give a R&B groove to the album. So happy for Paul.
-
B J Conlee wrote:
I feel sorry for the rest of you "Paul maniacs" on this Site. As you've proably seen, I love McCartney 3. There was only 1 track I didn't like (Deep Deep Feeling) and now I'm starting to get into that song. That and "Deep Down" are both too long but I think they are vey good tracks anyway. The reason I like McCartney 3 so much is because there isn't one track that is a clunker or stinker. I loved Tug of War but I never liked "What That You're Doing" (the Paul/Stevie Wonder collaboration song )" nor did I like "Fuh You" on Egypt Station. I also didn't like "Reallly Love You" (the jam song on Flaming Pie). All of those songs kind of destroyed those respective albums for me. On McCartney 3, neither Deep Deep Feeling or "Deep Down are clunkers. The are too long but they are good songs and give a R&B groove to the album. So happy for Paul.
I don't know why you feel sorry for us - I feel sorry for you that ONE song "destroyed"Tug Of War, Flaming Pie and Egypt Station for you! smh
-
Nancy R wrote:
B J Conlee wrote:
I feel sorry for the rest of you "Paul maniacs" on this Site. As you've proably seen, I love McCartney 3. There was only 1 track I didn't like (Deep Deep Feeling) and now I'm starting to get into that song. That and "Deep Down" are both too long but I think they are vey good tracks anyway. The reason I like McCartney 3 so much is because there isn't one track that is a clunker or stinker. I loved Tug of War but I never liked "What That You're Doing" (the Paul/Stevie Wonder collaboration song )" nor did I like "Fuh You" on Egypt Station. I also didn't like "Reallly Love You" (the jam song on Flaming Pie). All of those songs kind of destroyed those respective albums for me. On McCartney 3, neither Deep Deep Feeling or "Deep Down are clunkers. The are too long but they are good songs and give a R&B groove to the album. So happy for Paul.
I don't know why you feel sorry for us - I feel sorry for you that ONE song "destroyed"Tug Of War, Flaming Pie and Egypt Station for you! smh
I only feel sorry for you guys that you'll have to put up with me " bragging forever" about McCartney 3. I still love Tug of War, Flaming Pie and Egypt Station. It was that those songs were clunkers on their respective albums. I also didn't like "Gratitude" on Memory Almost Full but they were all great albums and I still enjoyed them very much. At the endi of the day, McCartney 3 will help Paul's legacy so much because it is so great, I'm still celebrating for this Christmas present from the master himself.
-
Paul McCartney’s New Album Helped Him Set A ‘Billboard’ Record That Spans Six Decades
-
B J Conlee wrote:
Nancy R wrote:
B J Conlee wrote:
I feel sorry for the rest of you "Paul maniacs" on this Site. As you've proably seen, I love McCartney 3. There was only 1 track I didn't like (Deep Deep Feeling) and now I'm starting to get into that song. That and "Deep Down" are both too long but I think they are vey good tracks anyway. The reason I like McCartney 3 so much is because there isn't one track that is a clunker or stinker. I loved Tug of War but I never liked "What That You're Doing" (the Paul/Stevie Wonder collaboration song )" nor did I like "Fuh You" on Egypt Station. I also didn't like "Reallly Love You" (the jam song on Flaming Pie). All of those songs kind of destroyed those respective albums for me. On McCartney 3, neither Deep Deep Feeling or "Deep Down are clunkers. The are too long but they are good songs and give a R&B groove to the album. So happy for Paul.
I don't know why you feel sorry for us - I feel sorry for you that ONE song "destroyed"Tug Of War, Flaming Pie and Egypt Station for you! smh
I only feel sorry for you guys that you'll have to put up with me " bragging forever" about McCartney 3. I still love Tug of War, Flaming Pie and Egypt Station. It was that those songs were clunkers on their respective albums. I also didn't like "Gratitude" on Memory Almost Full but they were all great albums and I still enjoyed them very much. At the endi of the day, McCartney 3 will help Paul's legacy so much because it is so great, I'm still celebrating for this Christmas present from the master himself.
I was mostly kidding Nancy. Don't take me so seriously and literallly.
-
-
B J Conlee wrote:
Nancy R wrote:
B J Conlee wrote:
I feel sorry for the rest of you "Paul maniacs" on this Site. As you've proably seen, I love McCartney 3. There was only 1 track I didn't like (Deep Deep Feeling) and now I'm starting to get into that song. That and "Deep Down" are both too long but I think they are vey good tracks anyway. The reason I like McCartney 3 so much is because there isn't one track that is a clunker or stinker. I loved Tug of War but I never liked "What That You're Doing" (the Paul/Stevie Wonder collaboration song )" nor did I like "Fuh You" on Egypt Station. I also didn't like "Reallly Love You" (the jam song on Flaming Pie). All of those songs kind of destroyed those respective albums for me. On McCartney 3, neither Deep Deep Feeling or "Deep Down are clunkers. The are too long but they are good songs and give a R&B groove to the album. So happy for Paul.
I don't know why you feel sorry for us - I feel sorry for you that ONE song "destroyed"Tug Of War, Flaming Pie and Egypt Station for you! smh
I only feel sorry for you guys that you'll have to put up with me " bragging forever" about McCartney 3. I still love Tug of War, Flaming Pie and Egypt Station. It was that those songs were clunkers on their respective albums. I also didn't like "Gratitude" on Memory Almost Full but they were all great albums and I still enjoyed them very much. At the endi of the day, McCartney 3 will help Paul's legacy so much because it is so great, I'm still celebrating for this Christmas present from the master himself.
This is why I loved CHAOS so much, it was IMO a perfect album. I think it is plain to see you don't like "jam" songs and I understand that because they usually don't fit well on an album. Those type of songs are fun to be played live when you can "rock out" and improvise. "What's That Your Doing" should have been left off the album and been the B side for "Ebony And Ivory" IMO. I think the songs you mentioned being on a album is the perfect example of how a strong willed producer like Nigel Godrich can make sure there are no clunkers on a album. I will bet you my house "Fuh You" would not have sounded the same or been on "Egypt Station" if he produced the album.
As for "McCartney III", IMO there are no clunkers and all songs are good to very good. We can quibble about two songs being cut down a bit but they still are quality songs. Usually, I am not a big fan of songs much past 5 minutes but the two on this album I am enjoying even after a few listens.