favoritething:
Supposedly, it's these two this year: Venus and Mars (1975) (Wings) Wings at the Speed of Sound (1976) (Wings) And then these two in 2015: Tug of War (1982) Pipes of Peace (1983)
One must say that the pairings make perfect sense considering the time periods they both overlapped and shared sessons. But I'll be skipping the POP remaster. 
~But "Keep Under Cover" is pretty awesome.
For me, one of those Macca deep cut gems. (Would've been a very nice entry n the 2nd disc for WINGSPAN.) I remember when I finally got PIPES OF PEACE and being disappointed that the majority opinion was right about that record being one of his lesser efforts....but this was a real stand-out track. In retrospect, I'm shocked he didn't put this out as a single. Real poppy, would've done decent back then. Best song on the album for me. I read somewhere somebody calling this a great ELO track that happened to be produced by one of the Beatles, ironically a group that ELO themselves really tried to emulate. Who else is a fan? (Or who's a hater? SHOW YOURSELVES! )
I think its credit to NEW that it actually demands relistens. I mean there are several tracks (the psychedelic-flavored Hosana for instance) that I thought "OK" and moved on but spinning the album to/from work...they really grow and organically produced/sequenced well for that album's narrative. "The Road" is a great album closer in the tradition of "1985". I disagree with the local meme that the 1990s flavored "Appreciate" (another that's grown on me) should've been a single. Good song? Yes. But it wouldn't work for radio if you ask me. Of course I would argue instead that "Save Us" and maybe even "I Can Bet" could be singles. (Even if the latter really is a terrific ZZ Top knock-off.) Taking KOTB aside (which was Paul goofing off on a semi-vanity/pet project), NEW continues his artistic winning streak for me since FLAMING PIE. I'm just pleasantly impressed that tackling some of those new sounds Paul isn't doing PRESS TO PLAY in trying to be hip with the kids again, or necessarily just recycling his greatest Beatle-ty/Wings-y beats. He's trying new toys and they pretty much work. Or in short, nice to know that one's faith in him as an artist is redeemed with albums like NEW.
I think what stands out about this from Pauls' other original albums (i.e. not including KOTB) since FLAMING PIE is that this one seems to really surprise people, and in a good way. Seriously consider the first track, which might be the only time I thought "wow, Paul made a Franz Ferdinand track." And it works! Its nice to know what when you might think you've got Macca pegged down that at his age he can throw pleasant curveballs at ya.
moptops:
A no show in the Asia-Pacific region for ages: specifically, Australia. And an on-going disappointment, I might add.
He never got over Manilla. And Tokyo.
DrBeatle:
This is a huge one, and the thing I think is the biggest factor. For whatever reason, critics were on John's nuts and subscribed to the groupthink that Paul was a soft square, and they blamed him for the Beatles' breakup...it became the conventional wisdom and the consensus...it certainly was when I grew up (in the 1980s/90s). I broke free from that mindset, luckily, but I think as you said, so many people now that are younger don't have any of that baggage and so appreciate it for what it is right off the bat, without any preconceived notions.
One word why: Vietnam. That generation never got over that conflict, and they're still more or less fighting over it decades later in politics over other issues. Remember when John died, he was eulogized as the peace activist...even though he had quit that for 7-8 years before he died, in fact he was already speaking of dissillusionment with that era. Of course for a whole new generation of critics and fans, Vietnam for them just means nothing. It's just that place Sylvester Stallone in that 80s action movie went to and killed everybody. (Or that war which America lost several wars ago.) Then add two little, other elements: (1) Paul for a time was blamed for breaking up the Beatles because of his lawsuit, though now we know the whole story. (2) First post-Beatles solo albums by George and John were homeruns. I like MCCARTNEY, but...its not a homerun album. If Paul had taken the time to crank out some good songs instead of instrumental jams, instead of wanting to stick it to Klein and his ex-co-workers, maybe his solo career would've been better received as a whole?
DrBeatle:
I think it was also another case of "will there be a Beatles reunion?" from the press if the 3 of them were together at something (and I think it was around this time that the rumors started going around that Julian would take John's place in a reformed band).
Pffft. I'm sorry but that's what I say if that really was Paul's excuse. Reunion rumors were strife during the WOA tour. Same with Live Aid. He (and the other Beatles) dealt with that crap by 17-18 years whenever the Rock HOF induction happened. What else is new? Let the media stir themselves over nonsense. The story wasn't the Beatles being honored, it became that Paul couldn't be bothered to show up. I mean hell Talking Heads, a band where the members don't exactly get along together, acted like grown ups and accepted their HOF honor. All that said, Paul did sorta make up by giving a lovely induction speech for John when he got elected.
Obviously I think this development is two-fold: (1) The re-issues and how well they've been programmed/scheduled, giving a chance for obscure titles/tracks to be re-evaluated by the public and critics. Look at the people impressed by MCII that it came from the "Hey Jude" guy. (2) A new generation of critics who don't subscribe to the critical Baby Boomer groupthink of the 1970s. (Consider for example how Queen were critically reviled back in the day, Rolling Stone calling them fascist.)
I generally try to divide the artist from the artwork, and I said elsewhere that honestly I could care less if PM or any musician I like is a nice chap or a douche. But there are times when even you can be disappointed in them personally for something that they did that just makes you shake your head. Case in point: Paul snubbing the Beatles' Rock HOF induction. I've never understood why he did that. George, Yoko, and (a pretty awesomely plastered) Ringo were there. Why not Paul? I seem to remember George afterwards chiding Paul for that no-show. Him being there would've been a nice sweet moment for fans and give a nice positive ending to the Beatles saga (many years before the Anthology.)