Paul McCartney's NEW Album

[Rich E P]

LOVE:
Save Us
Queenie Eye
LIKE:
Alligator
Dissapointed:
Everything else

[Lonely Summer]

Let's all vote for our least favorite McCartney albums. My top 5:

1) Press To Play
2) Flowers In The Dirt
3) London Town
4) Give My Regards To Broad Street
5) Run Devil Run

But even then I can find at LEAST one great song on all of those. But it was so hard to be a teenage McCartney fan when Press To Play and "Spies Like Us" came out. I remember really forcing myself to like the movie (Broad Street) and that just should not be. I am happy he has redeemed himself and his image since then (starting with Flaming Pie).

Also I will take a Ringo Starr album over a Mike Love/Adrian Baker album any day. (Sorry, Adrian, you probably meant well!)

What's this about Paul redeeming his image? I think most of the enthusiasm for Macca these days is about his live shows, and those are heavily top loaded with Beatles classics. Everyone wants to hear The Last Man Standing (Ringo doesn't count) sing from his Beatles catalog. I doubt many in the general public give a damn about any new music he is recording. CD shops sure seem to be full of used copies of Off the Ground, Flaming Pie, and Memory Almost Full.

[Rocky Raccoon]

The only song I don't like is "On My Way to Work."  Too repetitive for my liking and the lyrics aren't that great.  Otherwise, I think this a great album.  "I Can Bet" is my favorite at the moment.

[JohnMill]

Let's all vote for our least favorite McCartney albums. My top 5:

1) Press To Play
2) Flowers In The Dirt
3) London Town
4) Give My Regards To Broad Street
5) Run Devil Run

But even then I can find at LEAST one great song on all of those. But it was so hard to be a teenage McCartney fan when Press To Play and "Spies Like Us" came out. I remember really forcing myself to like the movie (Broad Street) and that just should not be. I am happy he has redeemed himself and his image since then (starting with Flaming Pie).

Also I will take a Ringo Starr album over a Mike Love/Adrian Baker album any day. (Sorry, Adrian, you probably meant well!)

"Press To Play" is extremely underrated.  The problem is like most music that we tend to think of as eighties music, it sounds dated now but taken alone as a Paul McCartney album it's an interesting departure from the norm.  I really felt bad back in 1986 that people chose not to embrace it.  The generation at the time that was embracing music in line with "Press To Play" just weren't ready to accept a forty-something Beatle making music that sounded modern.  Likewise the baby boomers weren't ready to accept a departure from the norm.  The fact that "Only Love Remains" was the track from the record that most people embraced unfortunately speaks volumes as to the willingness of the public in 1986 to accept something different from McCartney.  The embraced the one track that sounded like stereotypical McCartney as disregarded the rest.

"Pretty Little Head" is brilliant and "Press" in it's original 45 mix should've been a huge hit but again see above to understand why it wasn't.  "However Absurd" is cool as well, kind of McCartney's "I Am The Walrus".  Finally, I must mention that one unfortunate aspect of McCartney's public persona is that whenever a project isn't well received, he tends to dismiss it or try to sweep it under the rug instead of standing up for it.  Have you ever heard McCartney even mention "Broad Street" or "Press To Play" since the mid eighties?  I would love to hear "Pretty Little Head" played during one of his concerts but it's almost as though that album doesn't even exist in the catalog anymore and I wonder if it will even get the deluxe edition treatment when the time comes.

I guess I wish he would stand up for his work that isn't exactly embraced by the public.  I mean's he's Paul McCartney and I'd take his word on his own music before I'd take the word of anyone else. 

[JohnMill]

Let's all vote for our least favorite McCartney albums. My top 5:

1) Press To Play
2) Flowers In The Dirt
3) London Town
4) Give My Regards To Broad Street
5) Run Devil Run

But even then I can find at LEAST one great song on all of those. But it was so hard to be a teenage McCartney fan when Press To Play and "Spies Like Us" came out. I remember really forcing myself to like the movie (Broad Street) and that just should not be. I am happy he has redeemed himself and his image since then (starting with Flaming Pie).

Also I will take a Ringo Starr album over a Mike Love/Adrian Baker album any day. (Sorry, Adrian, you probably meant well!)

What's this about Paul redeeming his image? I think most of the enthusiasm for Macca these days is about his live shows, and those are heavily top loaded with Beatles classics. Everyone wants to hear The Last Man Standing (Ringo doesn't count) sing from his Beatles catalog. I doubt many in the general public give a damn about any new music he is recording. CD shops sure seem to be full of used copies of Off the Ground, Flaming Pie, and Memory Almost Full.

I've told this story before.  Around five years ago, a friend of mine got tickets to see McCartney and was completely stoked saying things like "It's the closest you can get to seeing The Beatles!".  I didn't want to rain on his parade so I kept my mouth shut but was thinking that the McCartney concert experience in 2013 should in no way, shape, or form ever be compared to The Beatles.  McCartney's career is such an enigma.  I mean he spent most of the seventies trying to distance himself from The Beatles and promote Wings when all everyone wanted was for The Beatles to reunite.  Then, John Lennon dies and suddenly McCartney is free to become "Beatle Paul" again and has been "The Last Man Standing" ever since.  

In a lot of ways its harmless but you can look at how McCartney since the death of Lennon has completely allowed "Beatle Paul" to supersede "Paul McCartney" as doing somewhat a disservice to his own career.  The reason being is because at least for me Paul McCartney never equaled The Beatles.  John, Paul, George and Ringo equaled The Beatles and the dream of the legacy of The Beatles ever being carried on in anything other than memory to me died on 12-8-80.  So for me to have been fed a steady diet of "Beatle Paul" over the past thirty years, it's just gotten to be a little much because he references them constantly.  I mean every (and I do mean every) Paul McCartney interview since the early eighties has referenced The Beatles somehow.  It's like Paul McCartney, this great composer who has this amazing body of work including the work he did with The Beatles isn't enough to sell to the public.  It really makes me long for the nineteen seventies when Paul McCartney endeavored to be Paul McCartney in interviews and in his professional life.  To me the whole "Beatle Paul" thing is about as much of a disservice to Paul McCartney as "Martin Luther Lennon" is to John Lennon.  It's really unfortunate that given what these two men accomplished as songwriters that the image that is promoted to the general public of both men is as follows.

John Lennon = hippie, peacenik
Paul McCartney = president of The Beatles fanclub

[Wirestone]

I've found every album since "Flaming Pie" to be pleasant to excellent. "Chaos and Creation" is a stone-cold classic. The latest one is more experimental than he lets on, I think, and I've grown to like some the generic lyrics a bit less. But Paul has been making solo records of a very high caliber for the last 16 years or so. It's an impressive run, and one that's somewhat overshadowed by the live work.

[jeffcdo]

Let's all vote for our least favorite McCartney albums. My top 5:

1) Press To Play
2) Flowers In The Dirt
3) London Town
4) Give My Regards To Broad Street
5) Run Devil Run

Both Flowers and Devil would be near the top of my best Macca albums list.  Gotta love the Internet.

[Lonely Summer]

Let's all vote for our least favorite McCartney albums. My top 5:

1) Press To Play
2) Flowers In The Dirt
3) London Town
4) Give My Regards To Broad Street
5) Run Devil Run

But even then I can find at LEAST one great song on all of those. But it was so hard to be a teenage McCartney fan when Press To Play and "Spies Like Us" came out. I remember really forcing myself to like the movie (Broad Street) and that just should not be. I am happy he has redeemed himself and his image since then (starting with Flaming Pie).

Also I will take a Ringo Starr album over a Mike Love/Adrian Baker album any day. (Sorry, Adrian, you probably meant well!)

What's this about Paul redeeming his image? I think most of the enthusiasm for Macca these days is about his live shows, and those are heavily top loaded with Beatles classics. Everyone wants to hear The Last Man Standing (Ringo doesn't count) sing from his Beatles catalog. I doubt many in the general public give a damn about any new music he is recording. CD shops sure seem to be full of used copies of Off the Ground, Flaming Pie, and Memory Almost Full.

I've told this story before.  Around five years ago, a friend of mine got tickets to see McCartney and was completely stoked saying things like "It's the closest you can get to seeing The Beatles!".  I didn't want to rain on his parade so I kept my mouth shut but was thinking that the McCartney concert experience in 2013 should in no way, shape, or form ever be compared to The Beatles.  McCartney's career is such an enigma.  I mean he spent most of the seventies trying to distance himself from The Beatles and promote Wings when all everyone wanted was for The Beatles to reunite.  Then, John Lennon dies and suddenly McCartney is free to become "Beatle Paul" again and has been "The Last Man Standing" ever since.  

In a lot of ways its harmless but you can look at how McCartney since the death of Lennon has completely allowed "Beatle Paul" to supersede "Paul McCartney" as doing somewhat a disservice to his own career.  The reason being is because at least for me Paul McCartney never equaled The Beatles.  John, Paul, George and Ringo equaled The Beatles and the dream of the legacy of The Beatles ever being carried on in anything other than memory to me died on 12-8-80.  So for me to have been fed a steady diet of "Beatle Paul" over the past thirty years, it's just gotten to be a little much because he references them constantly.  I mean every (and I do mean every) Paul McCartney interview since the early eighties has referenced The Beatles somehow.  It's like Paul McCartney, this great composer who has this amazing body of work including the work he did with The Beatles isn't enough to sell to the public.  It really makes me long for the nineteen seventies when Paul McCartney endeavored to be Paul McCartney in interviews and in his professional life.  To me the whole "Beatle Paul" thing is about as much of a disservice to Paul McCartney as "Martin Luther Lennon" is to John Lennon.  It's really unfortunate that given what these two men accomplished as songwriters that the image that is promoted to the general public of both men is as follows.

John Lennon = hippie, peacenik
Paul McCartney = president of The Beatles fanclub

I agree completely. When he did his first solo tour circa 1989/90, I wondered what his setlist would look like. Very few solo or Wings songs, mostly Beatles...and with few exceptions, that hasn't changed in the years since. I'm not even all that thrilled with his versions of the Beatles songs anymore - why would I want to listen to a Macca live version of Hey Jude or Let it Be when the original recordings are so much better? The Wings era was different - when they did a song like Long And Winding Road or Lady Madonna, it felt special, because it was only a small part of the show.

[Outtasight!]

Press to play, london town and run devil run i enjoy and play often. For my money Flowers, off the ground, russian album,paul is live, tripping the live fantastic and unplugged are the worst. Maybe add red rose speedway and pipes of peace to that list. However there is always something great on every album, the guys a hell of a talent. I'm finding it hard to assimilate the new album, at first i was completely underwhelmed but i'm playing it obsessively so I've no idea what to make of it yet. Its different to previous albums which is good.

[Bean Bag]

Like all of Paul's (& some Beatles stuff) I really, really like it on first listen.  Then I find it mediocre, even trite and a little grating in spots, after that.  It's the weirdest thing.  I can't dive in and listen over-n'-over.  Like I would with, say... a new Brian Wilson or Beach Boy album.

Macca needs to start acting his age. His old voice sounds ok by itself, like on Early Days, but he should try and stop trying to be 'Macca' for want of a better term. He seems to still trying to make records like he did when his voice was in better shape, and I think his weaker voice doubletracked does the songs a disservice. The harmonies on something like Queenie Eye or New (the song) sound weak.

I was sort of surprised by the "modern" production touches.  Kind of liked them.  Or they were well executed and incorporated, perhaps.  But, yes -- Early Days struck me as well.  Maybe Paul is due the Rick Rubin treatment.  The stark reality expose.  Like Johnny Cash.  Macca (gosh, I hate that term!) is of course no Johnny Cash... but it could be interesting if the songs are good.  Early Days was nice... but not something I would enjoy too, too much.  A little too self-indulgent.  Music should be about the listener too...

[feelsflow]

McCartney has had trouble holding my attention since 1997.  I don't think it was Linda dying, though most of the tracks date back a couple of years.  Flaming Pie was very powerful, and his voice was still great.  The folks that helped (Jeff Lynne, Steve Miller, Ringo, and Linda and James), were all at their best.  The songs were inspired.  That radio show he did - great.  It stands as the last vinyl record ($40 Import/1997 dollars) I bought by Paul.       But NOw,  I enjoy the records for awhile - Fine Line holds up well, and a few others.  I felt burned by the oldies record, and I really loved the other ones he did in that style.  Part of it is that I don't like his "new" band.  I got tired of buying the DVDs too.  He keeps adding one more tune, or four, from the old stuff to a set that has been way overdone too long.  I always wanted more Wings tunes back when I would pay to get into his shows.

Now, he's doing more of them, but his voice can't hold up.  I was questioning "Is he using auto-tune" with a friend the other day.  I have bought all his re-issue box sets, except the Wings Live - the DVD was enough for me on that.  RAM was done so so well.  The McCartney's I and II are worth it (if you are on the fence on those), the DVD bits are fantastic!  The sound up-grade on II is the first time it's ever sounded as good.  That is what I think he should focus on.  

I can't wait til he gets to Red Rose... and Wildlife.  The DVD material for those will be special, hope he doesn't double-dip to get the Blu-ray.

I Now live in the past with this cat.  Or if this hits the Amazon Christmas Special for $5, I'll probably give in.

Wait, I see there's a voting deal.  I give it a three.

.

EDIT:  Change my rating to a 0.  I listened to this while on vacation 4th of July week-end 2014 all the way through for the last time.  Wasn't my request, we take turns.  I never bought it and it hasn't grown on me.  This is the worst McCartney album I've ever heard.  It's not his voice that bothers me so much, it's the writing.  This is even worst than Driving Rain, which was also a set of badly written tracks.  What happened Paul?  Get rid of that band and think about waiting until you have a set of better tunes.  Better yet, just go back to work on releasing more box sets of the 70's stuff.

[feelsflow]

Wait, what did he say?  That's Paul he's talking about.  

[JohnMill]

McCartney has had trouble holding my attention since 1997.  I don't think it was Linda dying, though most of the tracks date back a couple of years.  Flaming Pie was very powerful, and his voice was still great.  The folks that helped (Jeff Lynne, Steve Miller, Ringo, and Linda and James), were all at their best.  The songs were inspired.  That radio show he did - great.  It stands as the last vinyl record ($40 Import/1997 dollars) I bought by Paul.       But NOw,  I enjoy the records for awhile - Fine Line holds up well, and a few others.  I felt burned by the oldies record, and I really loved the other ones he did in that style.  Part of it is that I don't like his "new" band.  I got tired of buying the DVDs too.  He keeps adding one more tune, or four, from the old stuff to a set that has been way overdone too long.  I always wanted more Wings tunes back when I would pay to get into his shows.

Now, he's doing more of them, but his voice can't hold up.  I was questioning "Is he using auto-tune" with a friend the other day.  I have bought all his re-issue box sets, except the Wings Live - the DVD was enough for me on that.  RAM was done so so well.  The McCartney's I and II are worth it (if you are on the fence on those), the DVD bits are fantastic!  The sound up-grade on II is the first time it's ever sounded as good.  That is what I think he should focus on.  

I can't wait til he gets to Red Rose... and Wildlife.  The DVD material for those will be special, hope he doesn't double-dip to get the Blu-ray.

I Now live in the past with this cat.  Or if this hits the Amazon Christmas Special for $5, I'll probably give in.

Wait, I see there's a voting deal.  I give it a three.

The best part of the Wings Over America boxset are all the extras you get with it particularly Linda McCartney's photographs documenting what I believe to be one of the best rock tours in history.  That whole year long run of shows Wings did from Autumn of 1975 - Autumn of 1976 was truly amazing.  Even more amazing is that it was their only true world tour as they would never perform outside of the UK after that I believe.  

You can't compare vintage Macca with modern Macca.  It's just not fair.  Almost everything about his professional presentation today is lacking when compared to his work in the seventies forward (I'm not even going to discuss his work with The Beatles here).  It was brought up on the Sulpy forums (perhaps by Doug Sulpy himself?) that McCartney's voice deteriorated greatly post "Flaming Pie".  It's sort of like a pitcher who throws 97 mph his whole career and then one season turns up to spring training topping out at 90 mph.  When it's gone it's gone.  

Unfortunately now with McCartney, you can even hear age in his speaking voice which wasn't there five years ago.  So it is what it is.  I don't want this to be a McCartney bashing post as what a cruel thing to bash someone over as we all get older day by day.  But your criticism about McCartney's current band are spot on.  He tours with fanboys now instead of a band and as I mentioned several posts up the chain tours "The Beatle Reveue" which is unfortunate to say the least.  But it's what the general public seems to want so it's only the diehards like myself whom a significant portion of their life has revolved around McCartney's music that take issue with that.  

I know what I'm about to say is going to sound so entitled but as a McCartney fan in 2013, I guess the band I want to see him up there with is The Beatles or even Wings but that is never going to happen.  So I don't know what else to say on that.  I too am frustrated with most of the reissues (Beatles and otherwise) outside of the McCartney re-issue box sets.  Hopefully those continue as we get some Beatles archival box sets someday because I'm really craving some "new" (as in music I haven't already heard) Beatles music.

[Wirestone]

For Brian Wilson fans to criticize Paul McCartney's vocal deterioration is hysterical. We should be so lucky.

[feelsflow]

John,  I am going to get the new Beatles BBC 2 set that's coming out.  Hope it's worth it.  If you caught any of the radio shows of the BBC stuff, on cassette, back when - there was tracks going back to 1963, that didn't feature on the first set.  On that Wings tour, yeah that was special with one of his best bands, tickets were so hard to get I missed that.  I liked Linda, and she got better.  By the time the late 80's/early 90's shows happened, McCartney had put together another very strong band.  I saw a couple of those.  To bring a Beach Boys focus to this...In 1976 as Wings crawled across the USA, I thought that THAT was the reason Brian was returning to the stage.  Maybe charged up that one was his heroes had returned to touring.  What did I know.  At the time the boys had been quite for years - and there really wasn't any real news you could trust.  I sure wasn't seeing the boys, as I had to spend 1976-78 back home in Louisiana helping my family, (my pop was dying with cancer).  The Boys didn't seem to think southerners wanted to see them.  I'd have to check Eric's Site, but I don't remember them getting any closer than Georgia.  Not that I heard about anyway.  Promotion was nothing back then - word of mouth almost. Then when I got back to San Francisco in late '78, it was all settled down a bit, and the Beach Boys were doing fine as far as I could tell.  I enjoyed all the shows I was seeing.  And even if Brian would not sing as much as now, I loved seeing him pound away on that grand.  When he did sing, I think he did well.  You read so much here.  For me Brian was a great talent always, then and now.  He's got so much soul.  I'll try to come back later and add more thoughts.  It's dinner bell....

[JohnMill]

For Brian Wilson fans to criticize Paul McCartney's vocal deterioration is hysterical. We should be so lucky.

Well when it comes to Brian Wilson, I think the fact that he hasn't been vintage Brian Wilson for so long causes us to set the bar a little lower for Brian.  Paul McCartney's vocal deterioration is a much more recent development so many of us are still in the process of adapting to that.  But again it's a harsh thing to criticize anyone for and I'm of the mindset that as long as Macca still wants to get out there and perform for his fans, more power to him.  He's still a great entertainer who packs houses across the world and I'd take seventy year old Paul McCartney over most any of the nonsense that is popular today.

Of the new BBC set.  I remember that the first "Live At The BBC" set received a lot of criticism because it was no-noised to death I believe.  A lot of the tracks sounded extremely shrill as I recall.  Hopefully this has been rectified on this new set. 

I liked Linda as well.  She was a classy lady through and through.

[seltaeb1012002]

I can't help but think it's the songwriting on this album that makes him sound older. On stuff like "I Can Bet", "Queenie Eye", or "Alligator" he sounds strong. It's like he wrote a lot of the stuff in a lower range, and the stuff he wrote in a higher range, where he'd normally soar in full voice, he sang in a soft falsetto-ish voice. I also recall hearing that on some of these songs, the producers were content with keeping his first vocal take. For instance, I KNOW he could've done a better vocal on "Save Us". Meh. Either way, it still sounds very good to me. But yeah, I'll agree there's a bit of a change overall.

[Niko]

I really enjoy the fact that what we're hearing is Paul McCartney's voice, in 2013. There were no tricks to try and make him sound younger or stronger

[JohnMill]

I really enjoy the fact that what we're hearing is Paul McCartney's voice, in 2013. There were no tricks to try and make him sound younger or stronger

I agree 100%, far preferable to if he insisted on being auto-tuned to death.

[feelsflow]

For Brian Wilson fans to criticize Paul McCartney's vocal deterioration is hysterical. We should be so lucky.

Clay makes a thoughtful comment here, on a brief break from the drama going on at the Mike/HuffPost thread