McCartney and Starbucks: it's a done deal

My March 22nd date was WRONG -- that date was for the post ABOVE it.

The Starbucks blog tracklist was posted on April 9th; zipzorp's description was posted at the very end of April 10th.

Sorry for the confusion!

 

Ya putz Thanks for the correction Sean

 

I'm going with zipzorp's tracklist. I'd rather not hear Paul write songs called "Love Hear My Thunder" and "God Damn Rock and Roll."

 

As long as we're apologizing: Sorry for infesting this respectful forum with that joke of a tracklist. I should have known better...

 

Those songs I posted are indeed rockers, you don't have to like them but they do rock!

I don't see how anyone can listen to the song About You and say that it doesn't rock, the same for Lonely Road, they both have a heavy rock treatment. Another that came to mind is Looking For Changes.

Also how can anyone say McCartneys rocking fire is out after a rocking burner like Run Devil Run? It was mostly covers but my God listen to the hard rocking attack McCartney delivers them with! That album is rock and roll looking for a fight!

As for Used To Be Bad, once again you don't have to like it, but it is a good Texas blues song written by Miller and McCartney, it would absolutely smoke played live. I can just imagine Rusty Anderson ripping through the guitar solo.

Guys when I say people know post Beatle McCartney, of course I'm not really talking about the younger generation, even though some of them are familiar as well, all you have to do is look at their attendence at McCartneys concerts. The younger generation doesn't even remember who was popular last month!

It seems to always be forgotten that a whole generation of people grew up with Wings/solo McCartney. They were all over the radio when I was in high school, not the Beatles!

Regarding the new album, with all this conflicting news I'm going to wait for McCartneys official announcement!!

 

How about Pizza and Fairy Tales?

 

I can't believe we're already heading into another new McCartney album cycle. The Chaos thread doesn't seem like it was that long ago. As usual, I can't stand the waiting.

 

I agree that's his greatest rocker album, but it's other people's songs. He doesn't write 'em like I Saw Her Standing There anymore, unfortunately. When he does rock it's nearly always in reference or in homage to someone else's style. I suppose it can't really be avoided, as the musical style was invented in the 50s, after all. Take Name and Address on London Town, for instance. It is clearly an Elvis tribute.

 

Tom Petty was right!

I work from home, so any big release by one of my favorites wreaks havoc on my life -- constantly checking the web for updates, daydreaming about what it will sound like, playing older CDs by the artist, wondering when we'll get an announcement, when we'll get a track list, when we'll get the cover art, when the tracks will leak, when the first print reviews will appear, etc.

I really thought I would have outgrown this kind of thing at this point in my life...

 

I'm definitely excited. Paul's last two albums have been so strong that I can't wait to hear this one.

 

Me, too, Sean, but I'm right there with you.

 

*There IS string quartet on the album, in a few places.

*I mentioned the "ghost of Linda" because more than one track features background vocals that sound scarily like Linda. This was also the case on "Run Devil Run" (specifically the title track) - so much so that Paul himself mentions it during the Best Buy RDR Interview disc.

*I am not positive which track is the first in the medley - based on how and where the songs segue together, my guess is "Vintage Clothes" starts the medley.

 

Definitely on the title track, specifically on the sustained "Run" in the 'chorus'.

 

I realise that this thread seems now to have settled down into two threads (whether solo Macca is any good - mainly driven by Maccafan, and speculation on his new set) but I'd like to add my two cents to Maccafan's feelings about the lack of praise solo Macca receives.

Whilst I admire Maccafan's apparently blind adoration of all things solo, I think this hides the real problem... put simply, Macca's Beatles work gets too much praise (simply because of the group of musicians he performed it with) while similar-standard solo material receives much less praise (simply because of the group of musicians he didn't perform it with).

Can I give a few examples...

I see many similarities between songs like When I'm 64 (which is burned into the international psyche) and something like You Gave Me The Answer. The former is a classic, the latter a little loved track on a mostly forgetten album. For me, I think that some of Macca's Beatles work needs to be "downgraded" a little and his solo work "upgraded" just to level things out.

I know that most on this forum have already done this, but there's still very much a feeling that nothing he's done has matched his 60's output, which I just don't think is true (accepted that this is all purely opinions) .Of course, "out there" in the big wide world this view is even more entrenched. Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da is a "Beatles classic" but [pick your solo fave] isn't. I agree with SoundQman that it's just the way the world is, but it frustrates me that I'm sure that you could pick a bucketload of his solo songs and, if magically transported - unchanged - back to the sixties would be hailed as standards. Similarly, I'm sure that a bunch of Beatles' tunes (Honey Pie, I've Got A Feeling, Get Back even) would be dismissed if he'd recorded them in the mid 70's/80's/90's...

It's a pure frustration that similar-standard songs get two very different critical appraisals, dependent entirely on whether they were recorded before or after 1969.

Unfortunately, I think the only thing that will change this is Macca's departure from this mortal coil.

 

Well, I'm 41 and I still get as excited about new music as I did when I was 16!

 

There is something in what you say. Paul probably has just as much compositional, singing, and bass-playing skill as he always had going back to the 60s. However, he has been missing the crucial benefits of editing, song sifting/selection, plus help with lyrics and other collaboration he got with the Beatles. He has also never reproduced the magic chemistry he had in the studio working with the other fabs. His backup musicians as a solo artist have usually been competent but not special, IMO. This is why I tend to like his pure or close-to-pure solo records like McCartney, McCartney II, Flaming Pie, and Chaos and Creation much more than the other recordings he's done with Wings or other supporting musicians.

 

You chose an interesting example, because "When I'm 64" -- even with more session musicians on it than actual Beatles -- still has what John Hunter calls the "fairy dust" that makes their music magical. "You Gave Me The Answer" is a similar dance-hall style song, and may even be better or more sophisticated musically, but it IS missing that little ... SOMETHING ... perhaps if it was produced as well as "64" -- but no doubt about it, the former is beloved by the masses, and the latter is mostly forgotten.

Of course, we mustn't forget Paul's role in the marginalization of his solo work. In the last decade he's toured several times, but his show has turned into "Sgt. Pepper's Traveling Nostalgia and Medicine Show." I bet if you asked Wings fans in 1976 -- when he played "You Gave Me The Answer" every night for 2 years -- they might have told you it was BETTER than "When I'm 64." Some of the songs mentioned by maccafan as "average fan classics" -- "Jet," "Live and Let Die" etc. -- are so partly because he PLAYS them every time he tours!

Also, Paul's solo catalog is in complete disrepair -- especially in the US -- or unavailable. With the fall of Tower and the slow demise of the record store, who will stock McCartney II and Pipes of Peace? Paul's albums will never sell like Beatles albums, and the cultural phenomenon of the Beatles can never be duplicated, so it's up to PAUL to keep these songs in the general consciousness. Only THEN can they attain beloved status -- it takes more WORK, but it's not impossible.

The Beatles could just say, "Here's a new classic, world -- Love it!" and the world would say, "Thank you, Beatles!!" Paul should get his head out of his **** and get his songs on iTunes! Every artist on there has an "iTunes Essentials" collection -- a 3 or 4 disc-length set of recommended songs. Does he have ANY idea how much this would help him? Maybe he SHOULD get some of his songs into commercials -- the revolution is OVER, people, and radio is DEAD! iTunes, TV commercials, movie placement -- THIS is how to reach the masses now! Ahem. Sorry about the rant.

The only part I disagree with is the word "unchanged"; too many of his solo songs are weakened by indifferent or lackadaisical or simply unfocused production, performances, singing, and/or lyrics. "Tomorrow" COULD be a brilliant song, but he tossed it off, recorded it badly, and now it's a classic only to US, the loonies, as George Harrison would have called us. Now, there are many, MANY solo Paul songs that are great in every way, but simply don't get the same reverence that even lesser Beatles songs do. In a just world, "Little Willow" would be hailed as one of the best songs EVER, but who knows that song outside the 500,000 loonies who bought Flaming Pie?

I share your furstration, but Paul is partly to blame, imo, as noted above. Part of the reason John's solo career is generally more respected -- besides his martyrdom -- is because he burned most of his Beatle bridges, and said "This is IT -- this is who I am now. Get OVER the Beatles thing!" Objectively, his solo output was just as spotty (perhaps spottier) than Paul's from 1970-1980, but Paul has spent the last two decades shouting to the world "Remember the Beatles? Weren't they great?" and it diminishes his own work.

I think that once Press To Play bombed, Paul gave up being a solo artist, thinking forward, trying new things, and took a sharp turn towards being a "Beatlesque" solo artist -- you know what I mean. All of a sudden he was talking about how he used the same instruments as the Beatles, or the same studio, or the same recording methods, or the same producers and engineers, or the same collaborative writing (with E.C., with Jeff Lynne). Always trying to connect each solo album with the Beatles somehow -- it sends a message to people that says, "Hey folks, I know you won't accept me on my own terms, but THIS one will remind you of the Beatles. Really!"

Unless he mounts a decent reissue campaign of his own, or gets into iTunes big time, I agree, sadly.

 

I agree entirely. I find his truly solo albums to be his most enjoyable (not necessarily his best) simply because of the warmth that comes through in the playing.

But that doesn't satisfactorily justify the criticism his solo work gets and the acclaim his pre-Beatle work gets. Here's another thought: Elton John's career is often broken into "early years" magic, "wilderness" mid-period and "renaissance" latter years. But it's all still "Elton John" so he gets a more rounded appreciation of his work.

McCartney's career gets squarely broken into Beatles magic, solo crap. Those who know his material judge him more fairly by acknowledging that he's written some fine material since 1969 but even so, I still think that people believe he's written nothing as good. And I don't think this is true. Sure, his later material has lesser impact because fewer people have heard it, but I'd rate several of his solo ballads as better than Yesterday or For No One. Maybe I've just heard these two too often...

I just feel that if either the Beatles had never broken up, or Macca had produced his entire body of work outside of the Beatles, his post 1969 output would be much more highly regarded. C'est la vie.

I should say that I've found every record he's put out since Broad Street to be worthy of at least four stars out of five. Is anyone raving a la Dylan or Elton? *insert tumbleweed*

Sean, I agree pretty much with everything you say. Macca should do more to promote his own work. I guess that, after so many years of having his solo career battered by all that he figures he should just go with the flow. I have some sympathy for him. Also, you have to remember that he knows that when he's gone his solo work will be HIS solo work (obviously) whereas there was a point when his Beatles work was being ignored/forgotten/sidelined by Lennon's martyrdom. He obviously figured that he needed to remind people how good his Beatles work was before even that was forgotten and he became no more than Lennon's sidekick in the same way Harrison and Starr were considered.

I also think he's made some stunningly bad commercial decisions (some of which I quite applaud him for actually). If he'd asked someone else to sing We All Stand Together, for example, he'd have had the satisfaction of a hit but without the dent to his reputation. If he'd pick decent singles rather than twee pop like Young Boy and Hope Of Deliverance. If he'd issue his experimental stuff under his own name rather than pseudonyms, a la Peter Gabriel...

Having said all that, I greatly admire him for not doing the obvious thing. I greatly admire that he leaves people to discover his more obscure side and to make their own minds up, but it doesn't help his cause because people generally need spoonfeeding.

 

For me, the difference between "64" and "Answer" is simply the novelty of the former: a dance hall pastiche in 1967 sounded pretty out there, while in 1975 there was a certain "been there--done that" factor (at least to me).

 

Maybe, but wouldn't that have applied to Your Mother Should Know and Honey Pie?

I mean, I could list numerous examples of similar styles / quality songwriting and in every case the Beatles effort is always deemed far superior. Obviously someone will counter by saying that's because it is, but I disagree.

I agree with Sean's view that Macca should repromote his solo stuff but, let me see now....

The world has been salivating over the remasters and on-off download saga. If Macca's solo output was about to be relaunched in this way would anyone give a monkey's??? Would reviewers be saying "well, actually, now I come to listen to this stuff, much of it is pretty good..."?? Doubt it.

 

Well, in each case, there's a sense of "diminishing returns." Don't get me wrong, I like all of those tracks. It's just that, for me, Paulie's gone to the well a few too many times with songs like this.

 

Well, yeah. I agree. But I still feel it's a tad unfair that all his Beatles efforts are "wonderful examples of the sheer variety found in their catalogue" whereas his solo efforts are "further examples of how he completely lost his touch without Lennon" [paraphrasing the general consensus as I see it]

 

I agree pretty much totally with everything you have to say. I've mentioned this example before, but I get so frustrated when I read a review of a recent Paul album such as Driving Rain that says something like "It's hard to take the lyrics of the title song seriously - 'One, two, three, four, five / Let's go for a drive'", but then a lyric equally as ridiculous such as "One, two, three, four, five, six, seven / All good children go to heaven" is hailed as part of the seamless pop masterpiece that is side two of Abbey Road. In my case, I don't have the desire so much to downgrade opinion of Paul's late Beatle work as I do to upgrade opinion of his solo work. I do agree that "You Gave Me the Answer" is a better vaudeville/early jazz pastiche than "When I'm 64," although probably not quite so good as what, in my opinion, is Paul's best effort in this vein, "Honey Pie." I have the utmost respect for soundqman and his always well-reasoned critical judgments, but I have to respectfully disagree with his belief that John, George, and Ringo always managed to sprinkle enough "fairy dust" on some of Paul's more lightweight Beatles efforts to render them superior to his solo work. In my opinion, "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da" and "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" are even slighter trifles than "Silly Love Songs" or "Listen to What the Man Said." Having John and George sing background vocals on the earlier two songs doesn't make them magically better than the Wings songs, in my opinion. I can't even really agree with the opinion that Paul has worked with inferior sidemen since the Beatles. George was certainly a uniquely tasteful and talented lead guitarist, but, while John Lennon was many things, including a genius songwriter, he was far from a virtuoso guitar player. Yes, he could "make it howl and move," and I definitely respect that aspect of his musical personality, but once he stopped actively co-writing with Paul after Pepper, were his instrumental contributions to Paul's songs any greater than those of Henry McCullough, Denny Laine, or even Rusty Anderson? His painfully out-of-key bass playing on "The Long and Winding Road" suggests that the answer to that question, for me, anyway, is "no".

 

Some great points, but a few mis-steps too. First of all, and I know this may be hard to believe, but Paul doesn't (or didn't) select the singles to come off his albums. Once he stopped releasing 'one-off' singles... like Once Upon A Long Ago, Spies Like Us and We All Stand Together, he left it up to EMI/Capitol to select the singles. This even held true for some album tracks that were either scrapped or delegated to B-side status, seemingly without his knowledge. Remember Paul announcing on Upclose, that Big Boys Bickering was on the Off To Ground album?

Paul is rather 'old school' in this way, letting the record company do their job by selecting the best singles. It was that way in the past, so why change? Perhaps now, Paul has seen the light. One of his complaints when signing with Concord/Hear Music was EMI's inability to promote Chaos and Creation. By the time the album was releaed, Fine Line had already been played to death in TV commercials... as usual, the single was released about a month too late. In my opinion Jenny Wren while a lovely tune, was hardly radio-friendly, and a rather odd choice as a single. It did little to promote the album on the radio, that's for sure. I admit C&C is meant to be heard as a whole piece... there really were no standout 'singles' tracks. I suppose Promise To You Girl would have gotten some airplay... but that damn sloppy guitar . Ron

 

If I had been in charge of EMI (fat chance, I know), I would have selected "Promise To You Girl," not "Jenny Wren" as the second single from Chaos. Perhaps it's too late for anything Paul records to ever be a top ten hit again, but I think that "Promise To You Girl" was the more obviously commercial track.