McCartney and Starbucks: it's a done deal

It is a classic! I can't believe it. A few brief Paul-cringy lyrical turns of phrase, but otherwise, WOW.

 

Goodness gracious -- if this description is accurate ... well, you know!

 

Judging by the album I heard, the StarbucksGossip songlist upthread is a joke. The song titles and descriptions don't match what I heard at all.

 

It can't POSSIBLY be as good as you've described it -- can it?

Can it??

 

I know, I know-- I don't want to give the Hoffman board a heart attack!

 

Well now, how does one rectify the two completely different descriptions of Paul's new album? Without bias, (I sure haven't heard an advanced copy) one of these reviews, perhaps both, are dead-wrong, or someone's idea of a bad joke. Your review doesn't mention any use of string quartets (this has been verified by a Concord Music rep), or a 15 minute suite, the use of a vocoder on a few songs is positively scary. What is this ghost of Linda all about? Female backing vocals? It seems almost beyond belief that not a single song title is repeated on the two lists. Your list doesn't include the supposed title track either. I'm not saying your review is phony and the other is legit... I simply don't know. It may help if you mention how and where you heard the advanced album. Hope you have some additional information to offer. One final thought. You mentioned "five listens in" does this mean you have an advanced CD or CDR? If so, no advanced sheet with it? No titles at all? Just trying to gather the facts. Thanks, Ron

 

Used to be Bad is what happens when two aging rockers try to "rock". Pure garbage IMHO.

 

This is a Texas blues rocker!

 

An addendum. Two of the song titles from Starbucks list, To Be Said and Pictures In Song (Suite) are included in Paul's book of lyrics and poetry, Blackbird Singing. Ron

 

I refrained comment until now, but there is a serious case of BS surrounding the Macca release. Reminds me of the "track list" rumors that preceded the release of Chaos & Creation--anybody remember "Bushy Tushy Jellie Jam"? That one even sounded made up . . .

Anyway, I'd take whatever is posted on the Starbucks site with a serious grain of salt . . .

 

Jummie, great news. I'm so excited I could wet my pants right now.

 

I'm looking forward to zipzorp's reply, but in the meantime, a couple of things to think about: (a) The Starbucks track list is three weeks older than zipzorp's account and completely (to us) anonymous, and posted second-hand; and (b) zipzorp is an established member here (Sept. 2003), not a newbie stranger with 3 posts to his credit. Why a SH.tv member would willingly risk enraging the Beatles/McCartney here fans is beyond me. For now, I'm more willing to pin my hopes on the zipzorp post -- and I eagerly await further clarification and details.

For what it's worth, zipzorp DOES mention the album-ending suite -- he "thinks" it begins with track 8. The fact that he's "not positive" that the suite begins here (after 4-5 plays!) might lend credence to the separate description of the album as a "collage."

Both tracklists/descriptions agree on one thing, however -- the album's a corker. As long as THAT part is true, I won't mind if the actual details go the way of Bob Dylan's mythical Stormy Season album of 1997...

 

Not for anything, but I'm not sure what to make of any album description that lists 15 tracks with the final being 15 minutes long. How the heck long can the record REALLY be?!?!?

Zipzorp, looking forward to more info about your listening experience. Sounds to me like you got sideswiped by the quality of this new record. I can't wait to hear it, myself!

BTW - nobody really likes to talk about this in such broad terms, but McCartney really has strung together now a SLEW a very fine studio albums IMHO. Not neccessarily huge commercial successes, but the man still has a strong creative muscle and has been flexing it well.

You really cut put one HELL of a comp together of his material from Flowers in the Dirt onward -- many VERY strong tracks in all those.

Ram and Band on the Run will always be my favorite Macca records, followed by a bunch of others like Venus and Mars, McCartney and Tug of War. But I've never heard his recent work put in context by anyone -- I think these "mature" recordings are pretty good and pretty consistent overall. Anybody else could claim a pretty nice career based on these alone.

-mk

 

I would never think a forum member would purposely mislead anyone. It's just strange that the lists have little or nothing in common. It could well be that on the Starbucks list, the guy (Smithers, I think is his name) picked a few titles purposely from Paul's book, then matched his descriptions to some comments made by the Concord Music rep. However, if it's true that the list is some 3 weeks old.... it would seem to be quite a coincidence that the title track is listed, but the album title itself was only announced this week?! I just hope Zipzorp wasn't given an advanced copy of someone who sounds like Paul. Sadly, this is not unprecedented in this business. I'm also surprised that an advanced copy is floating around, but then again, I just don't know. That's why I asked him questions. Certainly not accusatory ones, but there are enough inconsistencies to ask them. Ron

 

Hopefully, when zipzorp wakes up (his profile says he's in California, I think) he'll give us more info, but he could have been guessing at the track breaks, and he thinks that the album ending suite starts with track EIGHT, so it's not the FINAL track that's 15 minutes long -- in this account, anyway.

I totally agree, and I think I've said as much here before. I don't think he's made a flat-out stinker since Broadstreet -- and even THAT one has its defenders.

Again, agreed. Here's how I'd briefly sum up Paul's last 20 years of "pop" albums:

(1) PRESS TO PLAY: Dated production, but at least a unified vision, with a few forgotten nuggets ("Footprints," "However Absurd") and some personal favorites ("Good Times Coming," "Only Love Remains," "Stranglehold"). Also features two of my ALL-TIME favorite b-sides/bonus tracks -- "Tough On A Tightrope" and "It's Not True" (45 mix, NOT the CD version!).

(2) FLOWERS IN THE DIRT: Too many producers and too many "feels", and Paul should have done a full collaboration with Elvis Costello, but many strong songs, and his best single in a long while ("My Brave Face"). Honorable mention to the non-album single that preceded it -- "Once Upon A Long Ago" b/w "Back On My Feet" (another personal fave).

(3) OFF THE GROUND: Again, I was happy with the one producer/one vision approach, and although most seem to dislike this album, I thought it was a serious attempt to record a good album with a good band. "Hope of Deliverance," "Mistress And Maid" and several others are fine with me -- even the heavy-handed but well-meaning "Peace In The Neighborhood" and "C'mon People." "Biker Like An Icon" is a blight, no doubt, but the outstanding b-sides made up for it.

(4) FLAMING PIE: Unqualified success, inspired by the Anthology work and his "let's work quick" sessions with Jeff Lynne. Many, many great tracks, and a small handful of classics. Lynne convinced him to "dry up" his vocals, and I will be forever grateful.

(5) DRIVING RAIN: Unfairly maligned, and probably 3 songs too long -- and not the ones that some would name! I've defended this one in this very thread, so I won't re-hash it.

(6) CHAOS & CREATION: Pure classic. Well documented by myself and many others.

 

Ron, I hope you don't think I was "calling you out" or anything -- not at all. I want all the same answers and clarifications that you do. I guess I'm already in the "sweaty palms" phase of new album anticipation, and I desperately want at least the essence of these descriptions to be true...

The time delay is indeed odd, but I followed the link that accompanied the post, and the date on that blog entry was March 22. We'll see.

 

It's the post above the tracklist that's dated March 22. The tracklist posted by "Appleworm" is dated April 9.

Zipzorp's version seems a lot more believable to me.

 

You're absolutely correct -- thanks for correcting me. I too will give more credence to the stranger I "know" (zipzorp) over the stranger I don't (Appleworm) -- at least until the next unconfirmed listening party takes place!

 

Now, I'm really confused. Which setlist is older? Zipzorp's or the one first listed? Ron

 

The one by Appleworm from the other forum is older (it's dated April 9th). There's no doubt in my mind that zipzorp's details are true. The other tracklist sounded a bit odd ("Return To Pepperland", "Buy A Farm", "Robber Of Soul" etc).

 

I tend to agree, but how do you reckon that he listed a title track, weeks before the album title was announced? Not to mention two of the songs are included in McCartney's Blackbird Singing book from a few years back? It may be a coincidence, but it's a good one if so. Ron

 

Appleworm's (presumably) fake tracklist is dated April 9th. The title of the new album and the inclusion of a 15-minute medley has been known about for at least four days.

 

He didn't. He posted the tracklist April 9, after the title had been announced. I assume he got those other titles from the book.

 

I just want to hear the damn thing for myself already.

 

Then what is the 22 March date Sean mentioned? If that dating is incorrect, then I would tend to dismiss that Starbucks list too. Ron