Posts made by DavidP

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.

At the time of release Press To Play received fairly good reviews, most notably from Rolling Stone calling it "one of the sturdiest LPs of McCartney's post-Beatles career." In 1986 the s0-called "80's sound" was critically acclaimed. It was only after time went by that reviewers with a bias against the 80's production began unfairly dissing the album. But in 1986 it was regarded as a return to form and an acknowledgement of his growth as a musician as he embraced the new sounds of the day. I remember playing the LP at parties back in '86/87 and it was always well received. Most were surprised at the shuffling groove of Strangehold not even realizing it was McCartney. I have always maintained that if this had been the debut release from a young musically gifted British songwriter/performer it would have received heavy radio rotation and been critically and commercially hailed as a near classic pop album. Unfortunately, today it is an underrated and mostly ignored album. A victim of its time. Pleased to see that two songs from the album are included on "Pure McCartney". I just wish Footprints had been added as well.

RMartinez:

yankeefan7:

rich n:

RMartinez:

B J Conlee:

RMartinez:

A lot of folks here are acting like E&I was some sort of anomaly for Paul. It wasn't. It is pure McCartney, exactly what he wanted to write and put out, and it is what he is known for. Songs like that. Yes, he wrote Tug Of War, Junior's Farm, and Girls School, but he also put out Silly Love Songs, With A Little Luck, and Ebony and Ivory. It's what he does. To blame George Martin's production of the song for why people crinkle their nose at it today is just ludicrous.

______________________________________________ RMartinez, You're right regarding your last point. While didn't mean that George Martin was the main problem with E&I, I can see how anyone could interpret as such from my previous reply. In retrospect, I have never seen any quote from Mr. Martin regarding the production on E&I, either positive or negative. The other factor that I should realize is that even if George didn't like the results, it is very hard (even for a producer as prestigious as Mr. Martin) for anyone to tell 2 of the greatest artists on the planet that he didn't like their result. I would be very curious of the reasoning behind having just the 2 of them play it. While I can see that the initial thought would be very positive towards just them, the synthesizers being so glaringly out front in the final mix really did hurt the song in the long run. The irony is that E&I as the lead single did an amazing job of selling Tug of War upon its release, but even people who initially liked E&I grew to dislike it very quickly after repeated listens. The word "grating" is the best description for the extreme distaste in the sound from many (even objective people about Paul). Further irony about the huge success of E&I in the beginning, is that the song has hurt the overall opinion of the overall album in the long run. I believe that potentially Tug of War would not only be considered as Paul's masterpiece (even over BOTR) but could have gone down as one of the great albums period. As I have said previously, too many (critics, music press, overall music lovers etc.) can't get over the fact that E&I was the big single from the album and they don't or care to look at the overall album. Because of this fact, many of the great tracks from E&I get generally overlooked. As we have also said numerous times on this site, Paul unfortunately has failed to help his own cause regarding Tug of War. Yes, "Here Today" has become a mainstay in his Live Shows (because it is the obvious song to choose for a John tribute number) but he has never played any of the other great Tug tracks live. Tracks that I might add are significantly better than E&I. That is a travesty in my opinion. Look how Maybe I'm Amazed became a signature song for Macca. It happened because he played it in his first World Tour in 1976 and smartly put it out as a single. Then (and again smartly) he continued to sing it on practically every tour since. That's one way a song becomes a signature song. Why he didn't do the same for a couple of the tracks from Tug of War like Wanderlust, Tug of War (the song) , and Take It Away still baffles me. Then again, I never understood why he didn't treat Mull of Kintyre in the same fashion. It still would have given Paul plenty of room for Paul to play many of his signature Beatle songs. Even an artist as prolific as Paul can only have so many signature songs but the ones I've named here (from his Solo side specifically) certainly have the potential. It's like Paul doesn't think as high as he should about his own great Solo songs.

I agree with all of your points. That synth sound on E&I was pretty popular back then, but it sounds really dated now, and that is part of the problem. Part of the problem is Paul waited seven years to tour again, so perhaps to him, in 1989, he really wanted to leave the 80s, which were not kind to him, behind. That included Tug Of War. And yet, on the 1989 tour, he played E&I live, but no other song from the LP!! I saw him in LA at the Forum on that tour, and Stevie Wonder joined him on stage, so we got to hear E&I TWICE that night!!! I really have no answer. He toured three years after BOTR and featured quite a few songs from that LP on the Wings Over America tour. Why not play Take It Away in 1989 and 1993? I have no idea.

Keep in mind that he dumped E&I from the set list after the first leg of the 89/90 tour and even made references to reading/hearing negative feedback (even in otherwise glowing reviews of those shows in general)

"Keep in mind that he dumped E&I from the set list after the first leg of the 89/90 tour and even made references to reading/hearing negative feedback (even in otherwise glowing reviews of those shows in general)" How much of that negative feedback was that it was Hamish sharing the vocals instead of legendary Stevie Wonder? Hamish has a wonderful voice but he is not Stevie Wonder. Plus the imagery of "Ebony and Ivory" was helped by having a white and black artist singing the song together. Could it be that it did not go over as well due to a song about racial harmony was being sung by two white men. McCartney never did "Say Say Say" live and it was probably due to he knew you can't replace Michael Jackson. IMO - McCartney should have only done "Ebony and Ivory " live when Wonder could have joined him on stage, in other words a special event. This is why IMO Mr. McCartney should have used "take It Away" instead in his set list back then. _________________

I was at those shows at the Forum in LA. NO ONE said, "Wait a minute! A Black guy should sing those parts, that is why this song is not going over well!" No, Hamish did a fine job on the song. It is just a bit light weight. Which is why Paul also does not do Silly Love Songs or With A Little Luck live. He does not want that to be his legacy, though it is a bit too late. Paul wrote E&I and released it. If he did not want to be known for that, he should not have released it. Paul's judgment of such things is a bit suspect. The Beatles kept him in line, for example, when he wanted Maxwell's Silver Hammer to be a single and that was stopped, as it should have been. Other artists seem to have a bit more self control about such things. You don't see Jimmy Page or Keith Richards going through such a thing.

I like Page and Richards but both are quite limited as to the type of music that they can do well. (and they do it very well, I might add). But neither musician has the range of ability or songwriting talent to pull off a "Honey Pie" the way McCartney can. McCartney has never been pigeon-holed into one specific musical style or genre. He can just as easily deliver what some might call "lightweight" pop songs as he can rockers like Juniors Farm and Soily. That diversity has continued to astound me over the years.

Bruce M.:

moptops:

Bruce M.:

WixRocks!:

There's new tracks I'd like to hear...I can't say any of them come from this most recent album though. Looking at his recent works, I'd like to hear: -Wonderful (Ringo 2012) -Time (Y Not) -Everyone Wins (Y Not) -Can't Do it Wrong (Y Not) -Think About You (Liverpool 8 ) -Now That She's Gone Away (Liverpool 8 ) -If It's Love That You Want (Liverpool 8 ) -What Love Wants To Be (Ringo Rama) However, I think it's safe to say Ringo will never add anything to his set from the 1980's onward that isn't on the most recent album he's promoting.

I think you're probably right on that. I was really, really hoping he'd do Rory and the Hurricanes and Bamboula.

Rory is the obvious standout. Beats me why he wouldn't rock that out. Yet he persists with "Anthem". Jeepers.

I can only assume he really likes Anthem. It's not a favorite of mine.

No. He didn't play it at his show in Edmonton Monday night. The only new song he played was "Island In The Sun". The only songs he sang were: Matchbox, It Don't Come Easy, Photograph, I'm the Greatest, You're Sixteen, Islands In The Sun, Act Naturally, Boys, Don't Pass Me By, With A Little Help From My Friends, Yellow Submarine and a bit of Give Peace A Chance.

Great article on Ringo. http://www.musicradar.com/news/drums/ringo-rocks-black-crowes-steve-gorman-625462 Love the comment by Levon Helm (referring to Ringo)...."He'd make a cardboard box sound right....no one can play like him." I am always amused by journalists and "musician wanna-bes" and yes, even some board members here who disregard Ringo's playing, whereas legitimate artists speak admiringly of his talent, and rate him as one of the most influential drummers of all time.

jl4761:

Hendrix Ibsen:

jl4761:

Hendrix Ibsen:

jl4761:

Hendrix Ibsen:

jessiemillano:

I disagree with Keith Richards. I enjoy listening to Sgt Pepper's...

I agree with you. I still love the Keith.

I love Keith too, he just over snorted his Dad's ashes when he made that comment!!!

Yeah, he has a wonderful sense of humor. Nothing is too sacred to joke about. One must admire such a personality

I guess now its Paul's turn to say something bad about The Stones which should be easy!!!

I wonder if he is too polite. He don't want to hurt anybodys feelings. I bet that he could (if he would) and that he has opinions.

You do have a point, Paul is very sensitive when it comes to offending people!! That's probably why Keith made the comment about the Sgt. Pepper's album, because he knew that Paul wouldn't say anything!!! Now if John was alive, it would be a different story.

John Lennon already said it: "Roll a Stoney...well, you can imitate everyone you know"

Beatles4Ever&Ever:

moptops:

Nothing works better than a sensationalist comment to the press when you've got a new product to sell. Keith actually loves The Beatles, but he's a blues man at heart so Pepper wouldn't be his go to Beatles album. Nor is it mine.

So why did he and Mick try and copy it six months after it was released with their "Her Satanic Majesty's Request"?????... a perfectly dreadful album. That's the album Keith should trash. The Stones copied everything the Beatles did......six months later. He and Mick were so jealous of the Beatles they couldn't stand it. Had there been no Beatles, there would have been no Stones. And if the Beatles hadn't broken up, the Stones would still be in the Beatles shadow. The Beatles will always be ahead of the Stones.

He does trash "Satanic Majesties Request" in the interview. He calls it sh*t. I find it interesting that McCartney doesn't trash or belittle other artists. (At least not publicly). That's the sign of a true professional who respects all musicians.

Steffen72:

New is a great album. But regarding his huge and unique talent after 6 yrs break not good enough. In my opinion its not due to time and rush its due to not investing enough time in pimping many many demos. I mean on new are weak tracks as well but after 6 yrs its had to be better....

Wrong. You are looking at this from a narrow minded perspective. McCartney did NOT take a 6 year hiatus. Far from it. He released the excellent Oceans Kingdom in 2011. Following that musical venture he spent time with Diane Krall and Tommy LiPuma on the album of jazz standards, Kisses On The Bottom, which was released in 2012. Following that he began working on the material for the album "New" released in 2013. There are those who only look at McCartney's pop albums as legitimate albums, which is just plain wrong. His work as The Fireman, his work on classical albums is just as relevant (and in the case of composing classical music, far more demanding musically). It all adds up to an impressive 7 albums of music released between 2005 and 2013. (8 if you include Twin Freaks). Not many artists can claim that type of productivity, along with the massive world tours, and collaborations with others (Nitin Sawhney, David Grohl, etc.)

RMartinez:

With all the tarnished history, it's THAT version that people know and love. Including Long and Winding Road with Spector's angelic voices and orchestra. Let It Be-Naked it cool but almost sounds like demos by comparison, and how ingrained the original release is in our collective memories.

That's a great point. Let it Be was the first Beatle record (8-track actually) that I purchased. I was 14 years old. The album has continued to be a favorite of mine ever since. And I agree too, its THAT version of The Long And Winding Road that seems right to me.

Ebony And Ivory is an extremely well-crafted song with a positive and uplifting message and features great vocals from two pop masters. I still remember the day it was released. I was vacationing in Hawaii and have loved it ever since. It is a song that has touched many, many people the world over. The tune ranks right up there as one of the most memorable melodies of Paul's post-Beatle career. You couldn't escape hearing that song in 1982. It was everywhere. "....and what's wrong with that?" And to me it is laughable that some in the UK point to the three songs (We All Stand Together, Mull Of Kintyre and Ebony And Ivory) as having ruined Paul's reputation. Yup, those darn #1 singles will kill you every time! Get real......... Paul's reputation was not ruined on this side of the Atlantic, I can tell you that.

DrummerFromFife:

DavidP:

It is always hard to rate a new release in comparison to an artists overall body of work, but I would rate the incredible "Ringo" album as superior to Postcards. "Goodnight Vienna" and "Ringo Rama" are marginally better than Postcards. "Time Takes Time" is easily the equal of Postcards and maybe "Ringo 2012" which I think is a good one too. Perhaps "Beaucoups Of Blues" but that's difficult to assess as that's the only C&W album he's done. Tough to compare. All the rest of Ringo's albums are (to varying degrees) slightly below the standard of Postcards. .......and count me in as someone who enjoys Ringo The 4th. It's like a guilty pleasure that I spin every once in a while. The decadence of the disco era is perfectly (or imperfectly?) on full display on that album. And any album with Wings on it is a winner for me.

HEEEEEEEEEEEEY, a fellow "Wings" lover That song... I dunno what it is about it, I just love it to bits

I remember buying "Ringo the 4th" a few days after it was released and instantly loving Wings. The strongest song on the album. It was also a surprise to find that Ringo had co-written 6 of the songs on the album which was highly unusual for Ringo back in those days. On the Ringo album he'd been credited with 4 songs, Goodnight Vienna with 3 and Rotogravure with just 2 (excluding spooky weirdness). So to have an LP with 6 Ringo songs on it was a pleasant surprise. Gypsies in Flight and Gave it All Up could have fit nicely on the "B of B" LP.

It is always hard to rate a new release in comparison to an artists overall body of work, but I would rate the incredible "Ringo" album as superior to Postcards. "Goodnight Vienna" and "Ringo Rama" are marginally better than Postcards. "Time Takes Time" is easily the equal of Postcards and maybe "Ringo 2012" which I think is a good one too. Perhaps "Beaucoups Of Blues" but that's difficult to assess as that's the only C&W album he's done. Tough to compare. All the rest of Ringo's albums are (to varying degrees) slightly below the standard of Postcards. .......and count me in as someone who enjoys Ringo The 4th. It's like a guilty pleasure that I spin every once in a while. The decadence of the disco era is perfectly (or imperfectly?) on full display on that album. And any album with Wings on it is a winner for me.

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/

dcshark:

WixRocks!:

Sgt._Pepper:

WixRocks!:

"Lady Madonna" is really the only challenging piece Paul composed AND performed for the piano with The Beatles...and there are few exceptions afterwards...

Martha My Dear?

It crossed my mind, but I wouldn't really call it challenging. Of course this all varies from player to player, "Martha My Dear" never gave me a hard time...but to this day, I'm never 100% happy with my playing on "Lady Madonna".

Paul has been quoted to say that Martha My Dear was above his level of piano playing and it was a complicated piece. When I taught myself piano I liked to see how far I could go, and this started life almost as a piece you'd learn as a piano lesson. It's quite hard for me to play, it's a two-handed thing, like a little set piece. In fact I remember one or two people being surprised that I'd played it because it's slightly above my level or competence really, but I wrote it as that, something a bit more complex for me to play. Then while I was blocking out words - you just mouth out sounds and some things come - I found the words 'Martha my dear'. Paul McCartney Many Years From Now, Barry Miles In My Life would have been beyond his reach when it was recorded.

You don't know that, unless you were there, and you weren't. And to those who say things like "well this song is easy to play, Paul never could play beyond a rudimentary level" you forget one thing: copying someone's work is not the same as creating it. That's why lounge singers can do what they do, and little school girls can learn to play piano from a book, and while it's charming to listen to, the process of actually writing your own music, of playing the notes you hear in your head and adding the perfect touches to a song, that's where the real talent emerges. To judge McCartney's ability based on whether Martha My Dear is really that difficult to play or not isn't relevant. The fact is, the piano playing is perfect for the song. Millions can copy what others have created, but its the rare talent that can actually create the music in the first place. And in McCartney's case, it is his music that has proven to be timeless.

WixRocks!:

Picked this album up yesterday and have given it two full listens... My thoughts? The worst Ringo release of the 21st Century. It sits right at the bottom with Ringo The 4th, Bad Boy, and Old Wave. I fear Vertical Man and Ringo Rama may be the last peak of Ringo's recording career because it's just been creeping down hill ever since. I don't understand how he can release an album titled Postcards From Paradise, include it as a title track that is made up of 95% Beatles song title lyrics, and open the album with a song titled and about a band used to be in....but then include a song titled "Not Looking Back". Oddly enough, the only songs I liked were the last three...with "Touch 'n Go" being the only song on the album I will listen to regularly and would like to hear live this fall.

For clarification, the majority of the lyrics to "Postcards From Paradise" were written by Todd Rundgren. Ringo started it, and then Todd Rundgren asked permission to expand on the idea which he did. It was all in good fun. And because Todd is a huge Beatle fan it was no doubt a labour of love. This album is really quite good. Excellent drumming throughout and the guitar work from Joe Walsh, Styeve Lukather, Peter Frampton and others is especially impressive. If this is it for Ringo (hopefully not) he has gone out with a blast!!!

Nancy R:

beatlesfanrandy:

The hard realities of losing ownership of the Lennon/McCartney songs, the other three siding against Paul to have Allen Klein as their manager, and general business problems with Apple were enough to make them break up. A year or two time off was not going to fix those problems. As history showed, it took until the '90's to get them together again, though without John.

It took George being broke & needing the money to get him involved. Remember his business manager had ripped him off?

George was far from broke and definitely didn't need the money.

Really liking the song "Bridges". Good lyrics, too. Joe Walsh and Ringo always seem to work well together. The song just before Bridges, "You Bring The Party Down" is also growing on me. Initially I wasn't fond of it upon first listen. But I have listened to it a few more times now and it is quite a good track. And "Let Love Lead" has a late 70's/early 80's new wave feel (reminds me of something that The Romantics might have done) and is an excellent closing track with some killer guitar.

favoritething:

I'm going to wait for my CD to arrive before listening. I know I could download and listen from Amazon now, but when I buy a CD, I want my first listen to be from the CD, at full quality. I know: too picky! By the way, did anyone here actually go to a store and buy it? I'm increasingly skeptical that stores will have a new release I might want, unless it's from a really big-selling act. I'm wondering about his "Conan" appearance tomorrow night, because there's also a band called Waters booked for that night. Does this mean that Ringo won't actually play on the show? http://teamcoco.com/schedule/2015-03-30/wednesday/ringo-starr

Yes, I did. Bought it at HMV in Edmonton. They had several copies.

I am really impressed with this album. I just finished listening to it. Love "Rory And The Hurricanes". What a GREAT opening track. The "WoW!" factor is definitely there on that one. Excellent musicianship throughout the album and some wonderful guitar solos. Ringo's drumming is top notch as always and his voice is spot on. I would say this is one of his better efforts ranking near his best.

JoeySmith:

Ringo was never an innovative drummer, except for Rain & maybe A Day in the Life. He'll even admit that. He provided a steady beat, but so could many good drummers with the three others. Ringo's personality fit very well within the group. The less said about his songwriting, the better.

Many of the greatest pop musicians in the world disagree with you. You sound like someone that just can't stand to see Ringo getting such great reviews. Very strange....