|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 27, 2013 15:29:26 GMT -5
Finally listened to it. WWL, McCartney II, Driving Rain, Electric Arguments have nothing to worry about: New will not be replacing them at the bottom of my list. Not without its good points, but it suffers from nearly everything being the same sort of mid-range mid-paced mild rocker, similar tempo, relatively short on melody (lots of places where the melody line is completely horizontal. Interesting that so many tracks disguise his voice. He has clearly put some effort into the lyrics. I like Ronson's tracks best, then Martin's, then Johns. A more cheerful album than Chaos, and stronger than MAF, but still underwhelming. That's unfortunate to hear, Vectis. Any chance in you playing it more times to familiarize yourself with it and have the songs grow on you a bit? If you're anything like I am, it takes a few listens to have the material really take shape and become second nature, and thus more palatable. (I'm not saying it always works for me, as several listens never improved DRIVING RAIN for me). The thing is, yours is really the very first 'mediocre' opinion I've heard of NEW. While you are in good company with your disdain of DR, WWL, and M2, the overall vibe for NEW is a positive and uplifting one, and I am also thrilled about it. You're in the minority on this one, I'm afraid (not that it should alter your opinion, but -- ) .
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 27, 2013 15:43:44 GMT -5
So last night Lisa (that's my girlfriend) and I were out, and in the car listening to NEW. We stopped into a 7-11 store and spotted the new ROLLING STONE issue with Paul on the cover, so I bought it. When we got home we were surfing the TV and stumbled onto the BBC show with Paul and Katy Perry, which was a fun interview.
I can't tell you the excitement I feel in all of this. Paul's got a very good new hit album out, he is in the stores and in the magazines, playing concerts and little gigs, and is also on TV -- all at age 71, still vital and still working after 50 years in the biz!!
I love reveling in this present. And I always am aware that we are very fortunate as fans because we do not know how many such future treasured new experiences we're going to have with Paul McCartney. The man is truly incredible. I belong to a vinyl community and there are a few young Beatles newbies on there who have bought Paul's New album and like it ... but I tell them too to value these moments, and enjoy being able to buy maybe only their first or second current and fresh ex-Beatle release, and to see him live onstage. And happily for them, they do!
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Oct 27, 2013 18:34:33 GMT -5
Actually, the introducing of Ringo was a highlight. The introducing of Paul was a highlight. Once they joined the rest of the musicians, they blended in 'cause it wasn't about them. It was about George. They were so far apart on stage that it did not become the Paul and Ringo show. The playing at the same time was not a highlight. Sure, in spirit it was a Threetle reunion (George REALLY in spirit), but in was like a soup. All the ingredients (musicians) became part of a whole. The Ringo/Paul highlights were not musical. The final highlight concerning them was when they hugged each other while exiting (non-musical). In the movie, this was followed by a pan up to George's photo. I'm sure if Dylan was introduced that would have been up there with Ringo and Paul, too. And, if he had sung If Not For You and Handle With Care, that would have been a musical highlight. But, Clapton's lead in While My Guitar Gently Weeps was THE highlight. Yes, you are right that Paul and Ringo was a highlight, but really, there were so many great moments. It's not really fair to suggest they out shined it all. It was not that kind of evening. Let me put it another way; The highlight of that concert was the set that the musicians played when both Paul & Ringo were onstage contributing. Clapton's lead in WMGGW was indeed a superb moment in that set. The visual of seeing two Beatles playing together in tribute to their brother Fab was momentous. You know Clapton was for one shining moment in the White Album sessions when WMGGW was recorded, for all practical purposes; a "guest Beatle". So his contribution that night in that particular song carried a lot of symbolism along those lines with Paul & Ringo joining in. THE highlight for me though was Paul's lead vocal on George's song "All Things Must Pass" with Ringo backing him on drums, as well as seeing Klaus Voorman on bass and Clapton playing as well. I "lost it" at that monent in the theatre when I first saw the concert footage. So much baggage over Paul & George's relationship going back to The Beatles years seemed to be wiped away in that moment, and the love those guys really had for one another when the band was in its formative years just hit me like a freight train. I was glad it was dark in the theatre that night, because I was a basket case for quite a while. Most emotional I ever got listening to any Beatles music. Do't forget Billy Preston, Jeff Lynne and Dhani among the cast of thousands..
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Oct 28, 2013 6:33:58 GMT -5
My thoughts on first listening to the album "New" are:
1. Save Us - this is an OK mid-range rocker, not particularly memorable, with Paul's vocal loaded up with echo which hides the tiredness of his voice. I like the final "Yeah!"
2. Alligator - this is good! I like everything about this: the shuffle rhythm, the changes of style and mood within the song, the staccato rhythm of the lyrics. Excellent.
3. On My Way To Work - not unpleasant, but fairly anodyne. I liked the instrumental break, but I thought the middle section of ADITL expressed the sentiment better. This lyric is more like John's crap first draft of In My Life.
4. Queenie Eye - this must have seemed like a good idea, but it doesn't attract me at all. It doesn't appear to have a melody. Some care has been taken over the lyrics, although I think the actual Queenie Eye stuff is a misfire. Again, the vocal is plastered with echo. This is NOT single material.
5. Early Days - I like the lyric (irrespective of the sentiments, most of which I agree with) but, once again, the melody seems to have gone missing. I LOVE the bridge.
6. New - I liked this on the radio and I like it now. The nearest thing to what, for me, are McCartney songs. I'm not keen on the overly complex and unnecessary piano figure at the start and halfway through.
7. Appreciate - more voice disguising, and more horizontal melody in the bridge. Where have his tunes gone?
8. Everybody Out There - I was indifferent to the opening part - the absence of melody (again!) makes me shake my head. Then the bridge/chorus section kicks in with those lovely harmonies. Also, I like the guitar in this. A mixed verdict.
9. Hosanna - a wishy washy song, delivered in a wishy washy voice, with a bridge/chorus which is even wishier and washier than the rest of it.
10. I Can Bet - an unmemorable mid-range rocker with voice heavily disguised, and rubbish lyrics (which stand out, because he seems to have taken a great deal of care over most lyrics so far).
11. Looking At Her - there is a melody, but it's not easy to find. Effects and falsetto are used to disguise the loss of voice on this one. It improves as it goes on.
12. Road - horizontal-ish, melodywise, falsetto used again at the start (bad sequencing after the falsetto in the previous track), some drama as it progresses.
13. Turned Out - I really like this, everything works for me.
14. Get Me Out Of Here - I quite liked this, but didn't think it was terribly original.
15. Scared - the only ballad on the album, a simple piano and vocal with excellent lyrics.
More general thoughts:
The biggest general criticism is that there is a lack of variation - most of the songs chunter along at the same sort of tempo, with the same sort of rhythm, and in the same sort of vein.
The album has a Press To Play feel to it. I disliked PTP intensely on first hearing it: I now love it. It has the biggest change in my view from Then till Now of any Beatles album, more than LITW even, so New deserves the opportunity for that possibility to be explored. It definitely isn't a Driving Rain, which contained only one track I wanted to hear again - here, Alligator, New, Turned Out and Scared are all terrific songs which I really like, and several of the others have elements I like, and I'm aware of bits in others which I may grow to like. So, as I said, not a disaster.
It seems he has taken on board comments regarding his lyrics and his voice, because the lyrics seem as if he has taken much more trouble over them than usual, and great efforts have been made on most tracks to cover up how thin, tired and croaky his voice is.
I remain annoyed by the packaging, especially the wilfully problematic text.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 28, 2013 16:43:49 GMT -5
I liked the instrumental break, but I thought the middle section of ADITL expressed the sentiment better. This lyric is more like John's crap first draft of In My Life. Just wondering why things must be compared to The Beatles? (Bear in mind though that if all four were alive and still making records as The Beatles in 2013, THIS may have BEEN the Beatles' new sound.... though, probably not as well done!). I had been meaning to talk about the echo on this. I mean, I like the song... but I wish Paul's voice was more prominent and not as buried. I have heard a couple of people suggest it has no melody, but I find myself having the "Queenie Eye, Queenie Eye" in my mind, so I think that's some form of melody. For me, the middle of the song where they start the "yeah!" chanting (or whatever that is) kind of gets in the way. Must it be original? But still, I think it's original (let's say different) for Paul McCartney. I think it's supposed to follow the format of yer typical ol Muddy Waters Blues song. I like this one too, though I'm curious how you feel about the very rough vocal? I mean that you and I were hard on Paul's live concerts of the recent past, and how his voice is so weak now. But this song seems to really showcase that aging prominently, so how do you feel about it? (As for me, I accept it and am glad that Paul allowed himself to sound a little rough. Same goes for EARLY DAYS for me). Big disagreement here... to me, I think it's quite varied, and that's part of what I enjoy about it. Please don't say it has a PTP feel (I still dislike that album!). However, it's interesting that there is still enough to NEW for you to actually grow to like, possibly. The same thing happened with me -- on first listen it was kind of "meh". But yet, something about it beckons me to play it more and more (I must have hit 20 times by now). I cannot say that about "one and done" Macca misfires like DRIVING RAIN and ELECTRIC ARGUMENTS. With those albums I had no desire to ever hear them again, so any subsequent replays are a chore I endure now and then. But NEW really has legs. I'm going crazy -- what does LITW stand for!??
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 28, 2013 17:51:48 GMT -5
Another thing about I CAN BET. I have read two reviews now that each accuse Macca of stealing from himself, claiming that this song is basically a re-write of GET BACK. Personally, I have never noticed any similarity at all, except for Paul doing: "I can bet --- I can bet --- I can bet that you'll never guess" (I suppose like "Get Back --- Get Back --- Get back to where you once belonged". (?) As far as I'm concerned, the two songs SOUND nothing alike, even if that type of structuring is sort of similar. If it sounded like GET BACK, I would have noticed it.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Oct 28, 2013 19:06:38 GMT -5
Another thing about I CAN BET. I have read two reviews now that each accuse Macca of stealing from himself, claiming that this song is basically a re-write of GET BACK. Personally, I have never noticed any similarity at all, except for Paul doing: "I can bet --- I can bet --- I can bet that you'll never guess" (I suppose like "Get Back --- Get Back --- Get back to where you once belonged". (?) As far as I'm concerned, the two songs SOUND nothing alike, even if that type of structuring is sort of similar. If it sounded like GET BACK, I would have noticed it. Only the chorus is identical in structure if not exact melody. I'm sure it was intentional right down to the "o-no", where John accused Paul that Get Back was about Yoko. But I think it was all in fun, and has become one of my favorite tracks. He "bet" you never could guess, and he was right!
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 28, 2013 19:12:46 GMT -5
Only the chorus is identical in structure if not exact melody. I'm sure it was intentional right down to the "o-no", where John accused Paul that Get Back was about Yoko. But I think it was all in fun, and has become one of my favorite tracks. I don't believe Paul was even thinking about Yoko with the "Oh No" bit, nor do I think it was an intentional nod to GET BACK. I could be wrong and you could be right. Will Paul ever reveal it? I'm fairly sure that John only said he felt that Paul glared at Yoko in the studio while singing GET BACK, not that he thought Paul wrote it about Yoko.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Oct 28, 2013 19:18:40 GMT -5
Only the chorus is identical in structure if not exact melody. I'm sure it was intentional right down to the "o-no", where John accused Paul that Get Back was about Yoko. But I think it was all in fun, and has become one of my favorite tracks. I don't believe Paul was even thinking about Yoko with the "Oh No" bit, nor do I think it was an intentional nod to GET BACK. I could be wrong and you could be right. Will Paul ever reveal it? I'm fairly sure that John only said he felt that Paul glared at Yoko in the studio while singing GET BACK, not that he thought Paul wrote it about Yoko. Paul will only say he was playing around with words. I heard what I heard, and honestly could give two hoots if I was wrong-still like the song.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Oct 28, 2013 19:18:42 GMT -5
LITW is what Living In The Material World would be if you accidentally left the M out.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 28, 2013 19:20:22 GMT -5
LITW is what Living In The Material World would be if you accidentally left the M out. Damn! That's what I first thought, but missing the 'M' had me questioning it!
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 28, 2013 19:56:40 GMT -5
I think Paul has impressed many with his NEW album, which sounds modern yet not desperately so. At 71 he has proven he can put out a strong album in 2013 with the best of the young ones.
For those who like this album -- do you think it should be Paul's last? What I mean is, I hope Paul is around for a long time and I hope he keeps working... but can he ever do this good again with a new, modern album when he is 72... 75... 80? I guess part of me is hoping he can stop on a strong note, and this is a very 'up' note.
But knowing Paul, he will never stop writing and making music which is a great thing too.
|
|
kc
Beatle Freak
Posts: 1,085
|
Post by kc on Oct 28, 2013 21:59:01 GMT -5
For those who like this album -- do you think it should be Paul's last? What I mean is, I hope Paul is around for a long time and I hope he keeps working... but can he ever do this good again with a new, modern album when he is 72... 75... 80? I guess part of me is hoping he can stop on a strong note, and this is a very 'up' note. This is a very moot point for me. I'm not sure of the answer. On the one hand I think Paul could do a lot worse than go out with this strong effort as his last studio album of original songs. On the other, I am reading on the net that he has some material for another Fireman set (Recorded? With vocals?) and even more that is yet to be recorded. If his voice remains as it was for New and the additional material is good, then maybe he could equal it? What I do not want to see is a series of poor studio albums released over the coming years.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Oct 28, 2013 22:30:37 GMT -5
Go out screaming Paul.
You know Yoko did a song where she threw up in it. You can do a song where you hack up flim for 20 minutes.
It's your call Paul. Just don't quit.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 29, 2013 11:39:21 GMT -5
I haven't reviewed New track by track but overall I think it is a good album but not Paul's best. Yet put that in the context that I view Chaos And Creation in The Backyard and EA as brilliant masterpieces grossly under-appreciated by the masses in the biggest miscarriages of justice ever in the music world. I think the same of the four albums and singles comprising The JSD Postulate so saying New is good but not Paul's best is no slam whatsoever. That is a high bar Paul has set for himself.
I think Flaming Pie, Driving Rain and MAF are brilliantly good to great albums and I am sure that's where New will land with me. I am no enemy of New, not at all.
I say all that to note that Paul better continue to record his new music because I know he has something even better left in him. It could be very spiritual and uplifting or it could be sad and dark as sometimes can happen when one approaches the end of the end but hopefully it can be both with more of the former(spiritual and uplifting). There is nothing wrong with Paul making music like a 71 year old because that is what he is!
Paul will give us a synthesizer free album with lots of acoustic and electric guitars, real pianos and real strings and horns and he will sing about the joy of his life and his family(both here and departed), he will call out to John and George and joyously sing, "It won't be long, yeah, yeah, yeah," and he will sing about some fear and pain but tie it back to the ultimate anticipation of the next, final journey to the light and to the ones he misses and it will blow everyone away.
Paul has that in him but I hope that's like five more albums down the road!
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 29, 2013 16:24:34 GMT -5
I haven't reviewed New track by track but overall I think it is a good album but not Paul's best. Yet put that in the context that I view Chaos And Creation in The Backyard and EA as brilliant masterpieces grossly under-appreciated by the masses in the biggest miscarriages of justice ever in the music world. I think the same of the four albums and singles comprising The JSD Postulate so saying New is good but not Paul's best is no slam whatsoever. That is a high bar Paul has set for himself. As satisfied as I am by NEW, I wouldn't say it's Paul's "best album ever". But when you think about it, isn't it really hard to pick the #1 Best by Paul? He's got so many great albums and in so many different styles. These days when asked, I always choose RAM as Paul's Best -- or BAND ON THE RUN. But then I wonder if those choices are almost like some sort of obligation, you know? ("Surely BOTR has to be the BEST, because that has always been its reputation!"). It's very unusual for a modern, NEW album to be released by a popular artist who's been in the business for decades, and for everyone to say "THIS is his Best EVER!". You are much more faithful than I am, John. I really am shocked and stunned - pleasantly so - that NEW turned out as good as it did, and that it kept Macca a player in today's modern sound game, even though he is 71 ! I swear I didn't think it could be done. And if I am to be honest, I must admit that I don't think Paul can do it again. I want to be proven wrong, but this New album was a pleasant surprise that worked. I don't think lightning can strike twice here, and while I would not call NEW "the best" or "perfect", I do feel it's as good as it can get for Paul at his age.
|
|
|
Post by sallyg on Oct 29, 2013 16:42:25 GMT -5
I think Paul has impressed many with his NEW album, which sounds modern yet not desperately so. At 71 he has proven he can put out a strong album in 2013 with the best of the young ones. For those who like this album -- do you think it should be Paul's last? What I mean is, I hope Paul is around for a long time and I hope he keeps working... but can he ever do this good again with a new, modern album when he is 72... 75... 80? I guess part of me is hoping he can stop on a strong note, and this is a very 'up' note. But knowing Paul, he will never stop writing and making music which is a great thing too. This is a good question. I personally think that as long as Paul is in good health, he should keep recording if that's what he wants to do. When I was at the concert back in July, there were times that it seemed like time hadn't marched on since the last time I saw Paul in concert 20 years ago. There wasn't much of a difference between 47-53 year old Paul and 71 year old Paul or so it seemed at times.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 29, 2013 17:06:16 GMT -5
This is a good question. I personally think that as long as Paul is in good health, he should keep recording if that's what he wants to do. When I was at the concert back in July, there were times that it seemed like time hadn't marched on since the last time I saw Paul in concert 20 years ago. There wasn't much of a difference between 47-53 year old Paul and 71 year old Paul or so it seemed at times. Sally - I am really enjoying seeing and hearing Paul at 71. I had become so worried about his appearance and his voice within the last several years, but now I think he's doing better in concert, and I accept him as a senior citizen who is still making his fans happy by giving old and new generations a chance to see him. I was reading the new ROLLING STONE with Paul, and he did reveal that he is "dreading" the day his voice will not be there for him, though he adds, "it hasn't happened yet". He also said that Billy Joel asked Paul if he is still singing the songs in the same key, and Paul said 'yes'. Then Billy told Paul that he (Joel) has had to take the key down a half-tone. I don't know if Paul is still okay, or is he not facing the reality of needing to change it a little? My girlfriend, a pro singer, has told me Paul should take the key down, but that lately she thinks he's sounded better than he had.
|
|
|
Post by sallyg on Oct 29, 2013 19:43:30 GMT -5
This is a good question. I personally think that as long as Paul is in good health, he should keep recording if that's what he wants to do. When I was at the concert back in July, there were times that it seemed like time hadn't marched on since the last time I saw Paul in concert 20 years ago. There wasn't much of a difference between 47-53 year old Paul and 71 year old Paul or so it seemed at times. Sally - I am really enjoying seeing and hearing Paul at 71. I had become so worried about his appearance and his voice within the last several years, but now I think he's doing better in concert, and I accept him as a senior citizen who is still making his fans happy by giving old and new generations a chance to see him. I was reading the new ROLLING STONE with Paul, and he did reveal that he is "dreading" the day his voice will not be there for him, though he adds, "it hasn't happened yet". He also said that Billy Joel asked Paul if he is still singing the songs in the same key, and Paul said 'yes'. Then Billy told Paul that he (Joel) has had to take the key down a half-tone. I don't know if Paul is still okay, or is he not facing the reality of needing to change it a little? My girlfriend, a pro singer, has told me Paul should take the key down, but that lately she thinks he's sounded better than he had. I think Paul will keep on doing what he's doing until it gets to the point when he can't talk, sing, or play musical instruments proficiently. I think when that time comes it will deeply frustrate him because his spirit will want to carry on but his body will not let him. Hopefully, he has at least a few more viable years of being an outstanding entertainer. Thanks for posting a summary of Paul and Billy's comments from Rolling Stone.
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Oct 29, 2013 19:59:06 GMT -5
Is there some shame in having to sing in a lower key? Where's lowbasso?
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Oct 29, 2013 21:57:53 GMT -5
Is there some shame in having to sing in a lower key? Where's lowbasso? Absolutely none. Especially in popular music. It is done all the time on Broadway with classic musicals. When new star singers come along to do a show, the keys of the songs are adjusted to fit the new star's range. Same with pop singers. Frank Sinatra used to sing "Old Man River " from Showboat in a key almost a third-step higher than Paul Robeson or William Warfield did in the film versions. And Paul McCartney is no different. He has done a number of his Beatle hits in lower keys in recent years from the keys they were in originally in the Beatles recordings. "Blackbird" for example. Today's electronic keyboards have a button you push to move a song into any key you want while the performer plays the acutal notes on the keyboard from the original key. Makes it so the performer does not have to transpose written music at sight. Just play the notes written and punch in whatever key you want to hear on the instrument and voila; there you have it. You can do the same thing on a guitar using a capo.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Oct 29, 2013 22:27:59 GMT -5
Flip it though. Isn't there a little bit of pride in saying, "He still sings his songs in his original key"?
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Oct 30, 2013 0:08:45 GMT -5
Is there some shame in having to sing in a lower key? Where's lowbasso? Absolutely none. Especially in popular music. It is done all the time on Broadway with classic musicals. When new star singers come along to do a show, the keys of the songs are adjusted to fit the new star's range. Same with pop singers. Frank Sinatra used to sing "Old Man River " from Showboat in a key almost a third-step higher than Paul Robeson or William Warfield did in the film versions. And Paul McCartney is no different. He has done a number of his Beatle hits in lower keys in recent years from the keys they were in originally in the Beatles recordings. "Blackbird" for example. Today's electronic keyboards have a button you push to move a song into any key you want while the performer plays the acutal notes on the keyboard from the original key. Makes it so the performer does not have to transpose written music at sight. Just play the notes written and punch in whatever key you want to hear on the instrument and voila; there you have it. You can do the same thing on a guitar using a capo. Thanks. This "I sing in the same key I recorded in 30-40-50 years ago" stuff is ridiculous. So you need a lower key? Transpose and sing in your range.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Oct 30, 2013 5:51:30 GMT -5
Exactly so. Or you can tune the guitar down if you are lowering keys, and capo it up if you want to go to the original key. Not a problem for McCartney, because John Hammell will pass him whatever guitar he needs, tuned however he needs it, for each song. Trying to stick to original keys he is really no longer able to work in means that vanity is outstripping practicality and musicianship.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Nov 11, 2013 17:30:22 GMT -5
New has dropped from #11 to #17 on Billboard 200 and that damn Susan Boyle is pushing hard with a new Christmas album! Arcade Fire is #1 so at least it is a Rock group. Miley Cyrus is said to have smoked a big fat joint right on stage at an award show last night! She is getting cocky but I would still go out with her if I had the chance.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Nov 11, 2013 18:09:38 GMT -5
New has dropped from #11 to #17 on Billboard 200 and that damn Susan Boyle is pushing hard with a new Christmas album! Arcade Fire is #1 so at least it is a Rock group. Miley Cyrus is said to have smoked a big fat joint right on stage at an award show last night! She is getting cocky but I would still go out with her if I had the chance. Heard the new Beatles Live at the BBC, Vol. 2 which came out today on ITunes. Some great cuts and really cool studio banter. "NEW" was nice, but this remastered Beatles BBC album is what it has always been about; all Four Fabs at their height. Can't top all four Beatles!
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Nov 12, 2013 12:46:52 GMT -5
"NEW" was nice, but this remastered Beatles BBC album is what it has always been about; all Four Fabs at their height. Can't top all four Beatles! "I Can Bet" > "Beautiful Dreamer" "Everybody Out There" > "Lend Me Your Comb" "Queenie Eye" > "Sure To Fall"
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Nov 17, 2013 17:47:45 GMT -5
Just a fresh post to rave some more about NEW, which I feel is Paul's greatest album in years! I can't stop playing it, and I can't get enough of it. I can't remember the last time this happened to me with a brand new Paul album. No, scratch that --- I'm sure it has NEVER happened to me ever before with a new Paul album! Never before have I sung songs to myself while shopping in a supermarket, to list one of many circumstances!
And I am now thinking EVERYBODY OUT THERE is a Macca Masterpiece. To me that chorus is one of the best and most fulfilling/uplifting he has ever written, from 1962 to 2013. Both musically as well as lyrically.
SAVE US is another gem. I went from thinking nothing of it, to thinking it was fine as a rocking album opener, to now thinking it's one of the finest songs on the whole album!
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Nov 23, 2013 15:36:47 GMT -5
There's a listing on Paladia for Paul McCartney: Something NEW showing on December 5th. I tried to set it to record and apparently Paladia doesn't allow that. I've just switched from Time Warner Cable to AT&T service.
I recorded Wings Over America off of Paladia when I had Time Warner, so I'm not sure if it's just not recordable with AT&T or what.
(FYI, I bought the re-mastered Blu-ray for Wings Over America. I just wanted the DVR version to edit it down to a good hour.)
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Nov 24, 2013 12:29:11 GMT -5
There's a listing on Paladia for Paul McCartney: Something NEW showing on December 5th. I tried to set it to record and apparently Paladia doesn't allow that. I've just switched from Time Warner Cable to AT&T service. I recorded Wings Over America off of Paladia when I had Time Warner, so I'm not sure if it's just not recordable with AT&T or what. (FYI, I bought the re-mastered Blu-ray for Wings Over America. I just wanted the DVR version to edit it down to a good hour.) apparently Palladia is up a tier on AT&T's service. I had to pay $7 more to get it. So I am now able to program it in. As sayne mentioned on another thread, Jools Holland follows with a guest appearance from Paul.
|
|