brianwilson.com - New TLOS VIdeo

[the captain]

Last summer everytime I went to a bookstore or Starbucks they were playing Memory Almost Full so I highly doubt if Brian's camp can get that kind of guerrilla marketing going, but with the right marketing campaign I think it can do very well.

Well, it helps that McCartney is now signed to the Starbucks label. Talk about exposure. And I believe Barnes & Noble cafes are run by Starbucks.

No kidding! It's not like the Starbucks staff thought, 'hey, I like that McCartney album, let's play it!' Talk about a sweetheart deal for Macca.

[Amanda Hart]

Well, that's my point.  I think it is unrelastic to expect TLOS to sell like Memory Almost Full because BW has no access to that sort of exposure.

[the captain]

BW has no access to that sort of exposure.

I think Capitol records counts as access to exposure. Whether they use their resources to get it is another thing altogether. But he absolutely does have access through them.

[Dancing Bear]

That album was just another regular collection of Paul McCartney pop songs. About as interesting as an album by Boston during the time when "Never Mind the Bollocks" came out. "Memory Almost Full" doesn't even register in the greater McCartney pantheon.

I think what Brian has undertaken here is far more ambitious.

I highly disagree, Memory Almost Full was a heartfelt work, Macca talk about death on "End of the End," releases an out-and-out love song for Heather (whom I always disliked) with "See Your Sunshine" over a year after they parted company initially, writes a song for his daughter to dance to which is "Dance Tonight," talks about his past on "Ever Present Past" and writes a conceptual work about not know a person's mother (admittedly fictional) in the great "Only Mama Knows."

Hey, I relistened to MAF and it includes a mock-suite of songs. Who's lacking ambition?    If you took the best of Chaos, MAF and the B sides, you'd have a real kick-ass CD, maybe his best in the last 25 years.

[variable2]

BW has no access to that sort of exposure.

I think Capitol records counts as access to exposure. Whether they use their resources to get it is another thing altogether. But he absolutely does have access through them.

Exactly, also one time I heard 1971 Surf's Up playing at a Starbucks.. as well as IJWMFTT

[Andrew G. Doe]

Hey, I relistened to MAF and it includes a mock-suite of songs. Who's lacking ambition?    If you took the best of Chaos, MAF and the B sides, you'd have a real kick-ass CD, maybe his best in the last 25 years.

Maybe - but the point is that Macca didn't do that, which suggests a lessening in quality control.

[Amy B.]

Hey, I relistened to MAF and it includes a mock-suite of songs. Who's lacking ambition?    If you took the best of Chaos, MAF and the B sides, you'd have a real kick-ass CD, maybe his best in the last 25 years.

Maybe - but the point is that Macca didn't do that, which suggests a lessening in quality control.

Well, how often has McCartney written an entire album of good songs? During the Beatles, he obviously was responsible for half the material or less, so his best stuff was used. I don't know all of Paul's solo work, so I don't know the answer to my question. Lennon used to accuse McCartney of trying to coast on a bunch of half-rate material, and judging from Dance Tonight, he sometimes still does that. Then again, he's done some classical stuff, which is pretty ambitious of him (I haven't heard it.). I do think Brian is judged more harshly than Paul, partly because his solo stuff doesn't have mass appeal and is therefore judged only by the fans who tend to be music collectors.

[49ersphil]

I beleve that Macca's classical works are well regarded.

Another big 60's star (in the UK, anyway) still doing amazing stuff albeit very slowly is Scott Walker.

 

[the captain]

I beleve that Macca's classical works are well regarded.

By whom? Pop fans and critics? Certainly not by classical critics.

[49ersphil]

I beleve that Macca's classical works are well regarded.

By whom? Pop fans and critics? Certainly not by classical critics.

I beleve that Macca's classical works are well regarded.

Another big 60's star (in the UK, anyway) still doing amazing stuff albeit very slowly is Scott Walker.

 

The critics that I read (in the intelligent division of the UK press) generally gave it favourable reviews. Maybe you read/heard differently?
 

[the captain]

Most of what I've read is along the lines of "it's pretty, which isn't a surprise because of course Paul is great with melodies. nice enough." I've heard some of it, and that's my opinion, too. It sounds nice enough, but not "serious." I don't want to knock him or sound elitist here, but it's not really the work of a composer skilled in that type of music. My understanding is that he uses other people to arrange the works, sort of the way the Beatles did with George Martin decades ago. And to me, a huge part of composition in that type of music is arranging, understanding the instruments at your disposal, their ranges, their tonal colors, the general technical aspects of them to ensure you write appropriate parts (not impossible ones), etc. The music I've heard sounds more like "lite classical," music using traditional orchestral instruments but not necessarily for much more than easy listening. Again, I haven't heard all of it, so I don't pretend to know everything about his work. But those are the impressions I've had, and from those reviews and stories I've read: that generally, this "classical" music is more likely to impress pop fans than classical (I hate that word, actually, but it's the most understood one) audiences.

[Yorick]

It's just unbelievable to me that there are people putting Brian Wilson in a category of old rock stars who have never gone crap en put McCartney and The rolling Stones in the one that got crappy. I mean, christ, are you out of your mind? Brian as a solo artist imo has never released an album anywhere near as good as mccartney's worst. All we have is BW '88 with great songs but the worst ever production, a record like Press To Play was for McCartney. But where for McCartney PTP was a low, it's Brian's best solo statement so far (excluding SMiLE). He doesn't have a McCartney, a RAM, A Band On The Run, a Venus & Mars, A Tug Of War, a Flaming Pie, a C&C or a MAF to show that he's a truly good and convincing solo artist.

[the captain]

I guess I skipped some of this thread--did anyone say Wilson never put out some crap? I highly doubt it. I think most everyone would admit that he's been pretty uneven at best. But I think you're overrating McCartney there, too. He's had more than his share of garbage. More good and more garbage, because he's put out so much more. I consider most of his work as being pleasant throwaway music.

[Dancing Bear]

I'm a McCartney fan but I'm well aware that his prime was in his first 2 professional decades. I'm glad he keeps releasing new cds, some I like, others gather dust forever in my shelf, but I don't fool myself believing that at this point he's gonna release something that will change people's mind about his work. It just won't happen.

[TdHabib]

Oh I shouldn't have opened the McCartney bag! Evidently not everyone's sharing the love. That's OK what me-that's what makes the world go round. I'm off to listen to Flowers in the Dirt in the mean time.

[John]

It's just unbelievable to me that there are people putting Brian Wilson in a category of old rock stars who have never gone crap en put McCartney and The rolling Stones in the one that got crappy. I mean, christ, are you out of your mind? Brian as a solo artist imo has never released an album anywhere near as good as mccartney's worst. All we have is BW '88 with great songs but the worst ever production, a record like Press To Play was for McCartney. But where for McCartney PTP was a low, it's Brian's best solo statement so far (excluding SMiLE). He doesn't have a McCartney, a RAM, A Band On The Run, a Venus & Mars, A Tug Of War, a Flaming Pie, a C&C or a MAF to show that he's a truly good and convincing solo artist.

Um, wait right there. I didn't say Wilson had "never put out crap", I said that he's "considered never to have gone crap" - ie. critics generally like him even when he puts out a dud, the overall critical consensus (not us here, whining about minutae) is that he's still got a good track record and nevertheless is still good.

As for McCartney, he's frittered away a lot of critical goodwill with subpar albums. For my part, I've enjoyed little bits here and there of his 90s/2000s stuff -what I've heard of it - and believe that Calico Skies is as good as just anything he wrote as a Beatle. I couldn't care less about most of Wings though.

That's nothing to do with what I feel. To be honest, I haven't even bothered to buy a few of Brian's albums (I own 88, Imagination, OCA (somewhere), Roxy and Smile. I will pick up TLOS.)  I'm talking about the Critical Consensus.

And if you think the Stones never went crap, then you're out of your mind. The only question is, when should they have split up, 1973, 1978 or 1981? Voodoo Lounge has some moments - New Faces, The Worst, that are very good indeed, but even that's fifteen years ago. Now they produce tired by-the-numbers albums and lifeless, over-slick shows.

[shelter]

I believe the sentiment on the Blueboard is one of fairly equal enthusiasm for both albums. Possibly the excitement is more skewed toward Brian because it's Brian's board, but with the exception of a couple of people, most people are giving POB high praise. Now, if Mike Love's album ever comes out...

I'm actually quite excited about Al's album as well.

[Yorick]

Um, wait right there. I didn't say Wilson had "never put out crap", I said that he's "considered never to have gone crap" - ie. critics generally like him even when he puts out a dud, the overall critical consensus (not us here, whining about minutae) is that he's still got a good track record and nevertheless is still good.

As for McCartney, he's frittered away a lot of critical goodwill with subpar albums. For my part, I've enjoyed little bits here and there of his 90s/2000s stuff -what I've heard of it - and believe that Calico Skies is as good as just anything he wrote as a Beatle. I couldn't care less about most of Wings though.

That's nothing to do with what I feel. To be honest, I haven't even bothered to buy a few of Brian's albums (I own 88, Imagination, OCA (somewhere), Roxy and Smile. I will pick up TLOS.)  I'm talking about the Critical Consensus.

And if you think the Stones never went crap, then you're out of your mind. The only question is, when should they have split up, 1973, 1978 or 1981? Voodoo Lounge has some moments - New Faces, The Worst, that are very good indeed, but even that's fifteen years ago. Now they produce tired by-the-numbers albums and lifeless, over-slick shows.

Hey John, I know you are right about it when you're talking about the critical consensus. And all of us are entitled to have our own personal opinions. To me it's just unbelievable that there are people around here who rate Brians solo work higher than Macca's. But I think this is not the most objective place to be for a conversation about that. The Stones should have quit round 76 or 78, after Black and Blue or Some Girls. They have really gone crap afterwards, there's only 5 songs that I like which were written after that time. (Waiting on a friend and start me up were old songs)

[Amy B.]

I personally am not rating Brian's solo work higher than Macca's-- I'm not familiar enough with McCartney's catalog. However, I do love BW88-- it's not a forgone conclusion that it's a bad album. The songs are top-notch, in my opinion, and I actually like some of the production.

And when I think of solo Brian, I think of the peaks. Some of the  songs are terrific-- like Midnight's Another Day, I Sleep Alone, There's So Many, Melt Away, Rio Grande, Oxygen to the Brain, What I Really Want for Christmas, What Love Can Do, etc . We know that both Brian and Paul have done some crappy stuff in their solo careers. As for the good stuff, maybe Paul had peaks that were just as high. ?? I don't know.

Why are we comparing them again?

[John]

Um, wait right there. I didn't say Wilson had "never put out crap", I said that he's "considered never to have gone crap" - ie. critics generally like him even when he puts out a dud, the overall critical consensus (not us here, whining about minutae) is that he's still got a good track record and nevertheless is still good.

As for McCartney, he's frittered away a lot of critical goodwill with subpar albums. For my part, I've enjoyed little bits here and there of his 90s/2000s stuff -what I've heard of it - and believe that Calico Skies is as good as just anything he wrote as a Beatle. I couldn't care less about most of Wings though.

That's nothing to do with what I feel. To be honest, I haven't even bothered to buy a few of Brian's albums (I own 88, Imagination, OCA (somewhere), Roxy and Smile. I will pick up TLOS.)  I'm talking about the Critical Consensus.

And if you think the Stones never went crap, then you're out of your mind. The only question is, when should they have split up, 1973, 1978 or 1981? Voodoo Lounge has some moments - New Faces, The Worst, that are very good indeed, but even that's fifteen years ago. Now they produce tired by-the-numbers albums and lifeless, over-slick shows.

Hey John, I know you are right about it when you're talking about the critical consensus. And all of us are entitled to have our own personal opinions. To me it's just unbelievable that there are people around here who rate Brians solo work higher than Macca's. But I think this is not the most objective place to be for a conversation about that. The Stones should have quit round 76 or 78, after Black and Blue or Some Girls. They have really gone crap afterwards, there's only 5 songs that I like which were written after that time. (Waiting on a friend and start me up were old songs)

Yeah, Some Girls would suit me too. Emotional Rescue is a largely awful album, and though Tattoo You is good, it's mostly from the vaults. 1978 it is then.

[brianc]

The argument was originally that these artists from the older generation, by and large, aren't counted on to break any new ground or to procude records that are risky or challenging.

That said, I didn't mean to dissuade anyone from enjoying McCartney's solo albums. I've bought every one of them, and even if they don't break new ground, or even if some of them aren't uniformely great, he can always be counted on for some stellar cuts, even in his later years. I particularly love "House of Wax" and "Mr. Bellemy" from the latest.

[John]

Mr Bellamy is a good little song. I like how he switches to the low voices of the policemen / firemen: "Steady lads". It's a bit I can imagine John and George doing in another time...

[Sheriff John Stone]

I personally am not rating Brian's solo work higher than Macca's-- I'm not familiar enough with McCartney's catalog. However, I do love BW88-- it's not a forgone conclusion that it's a bad album. The songs are top-notch, in my opinion, and I actually like some of the production.

And when I think of solo Brian, I think of the peaks. Some of the  songs are terrific-- like Midnight's Another Day, I Sleep Alone, There's So Many, Melt Away, Rio Grande, Oxygen to the Brain, What I Really Want for Christmas, What Love Can Do, etc . We know that both Brian and Paul have done some crappy stuff in their solo careers. As for the good stuff, maybe Paul had peaks that were just as high. ?? I don't know.

Why are we comparing them again?

Amy, like you, I don't have ALL of McCartney's solo albums, but I have enough of 'em. And, I also forgot why we were comparing them! But I'm gonna jump in, and probably get blasted, but what the heck...

I agree with Yorick, there is no way that Brian's solo albums rate higher than McCartney's. I don't even think it's close. And I'll try to get right to the point.

Brian's solo songs, production, and performance aren't even near McCartney's. The weak point of BW88, Imaginaton, and GIOMH is the production. As far as the songs are concerned, I know many here will disagree with me, but I just don't think the majority of Brian's solo songs are that good. On each album, maybe one great one, one or two good ones, and a bunch of disappointing ones. And don't non-Beach Boys fans (the other 99%) agree? I know you can't always base quality on sales, but why do you think Brian's albums have tanked? Why? BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT THAT GOOD. If they would've been, believe me, word would've gotten out (like Pacific Ocean Blue now) and those albums would've taken off. And lastly, Brian Wilson does not sing well enough to warrant the praise of other major recording artists, including Paul McCartney. Listen to Paul McCartney. With a few exceptions, he has sounded basically the same for the last 40 years. He's very good. Can you honestly say the same about Brian?

[the captain]

Macca's production was pretty awful in the 80s and some of the 90s, too, in my opinion. I think it was with Flaming Pie that I began finding it listenable. Flowers in the Dirt, for example, I hated the production. Just awful, every bit as bad as Brian's bad stuff. But he had more good than Brian in his solo career, no doubt about that in my mind. As for percentage of good stuff, I'm not as sure. And frankly, I have no intention of doing the math! I like them both, generally.

[brianc]

Well, Brian was still recording with the Beach Boys during the first 15 years of Paul McCartney's solo career... and much of that period, Brian wasn't putting much of his written material on Beach Boys albums.

But a comparison of the two gents from 1988 to the present... a lot of weak cuts on both sides. Paul has probably had stronger moments in all, and sure his voice sounds youthful. But I like the 1988 album, Orange Crate and the Wilson/Paley lineup a whole ton. From 1988 on, I can't think of one McCartney album that I like all the way through. Not even close. But that's just me.