|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 3, 2014 6:09:58 GMT -5
Not really a fair comparison. Paul McCartney solo would be like releasing Robert Plant solo albums. Led Zeppelin as a group is another thing entirely -- plus the fact that Zep's albums have not been re-issued on Vinyl like this before. It's much of the same target audience. And it's not like "NEW" was bad. I do think NEW was a fine album, and it's literally on my own list of McCartney's TOP FIVE ALBUMS... it went up to #3 on BILLBOARD for Cripe's sake, which is quite amazing for a 70+ year old in this modern age. But Rock-loving Led Zeppelin fans are not necessarily going to be as wowed by a softer-core Paul McCartney LP like NEW. Also, Paul chose a terrible time to put his album out, because at the same time there were other albums competing in the charts by today's modern popular artists, who were a sure thing to get the top slot. And like I said, Led Zeppelin hasn't had brand new remastered vinyl LPs of their classic albums out in a very long time now, and vinyl has made a big resurgence among the youth these days... so naturally their new vinyl LPs are going to be very desired.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 3, 2014 7:06:45 GMT -5
I was re-reading most of this entire thread, and several times here we had Beatles Fans claiming that "The Whole Is Greater", and that they expected The Beatles' ON AIR: LIVE AT THE BBC VOL. 2 to do better on the charts than Paul's NEW album did... It appears nobody in the thread has ever made this official, so I will do so now: US CHART:NEW (Paul McCartney) -- #3 ON AIR: LIVE AT THE BBC 2 (The Beatles) -- # 7
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Aug 3, 2014 8:27:58 GMT -5
The Zep albums are out on CDs too. Not just the LPs.
When I figure out how much George's Apple box is going to cost me, I'll know if I can pick them up.
Zeppelin IV and Houses of the Holy will be coming out in July. I like IV and the later stuff better than the first three that are out now.
|
|
|
Post by sallyg on Aug 3, 2014 8:53:34 GMT -5
I was re-reading most of this entire thread, and several times here we had Beatles Fans claiming that "The Whole Is Greater", and that they expected The Beatles' ON AIR: LIVE AT THE BBC VOL. 2 to do better on the charts than Paul's NEW album did... It appears nobody in the thread has ever made this official, so I will do so now: US CHART:NEW (Paul McCartney) -- #3 ON AIR: LIVE AT THE BBC 2 (The Beatles) -- # 7 That's great Joe. Personally, I don't subscribe to the Whole Is Greater than the individual philosophy. I like Paul's solo stuff as much as the Beatles. Same with John, Ringo and George.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Aug 4, 2014 3:29:54 GMT -5
I very firmly do subscribe to the Whole is greater than the Parts theory, but I suspect it doesn't apply to comparisons between an album from a bloke where every track demonstrates what his voice isn't, and an album of retreads.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 4, 2014 5:56:00 GMT -5
I very firmly do subscribe to the Whole is greater than the Parts theory, but I suspect it doesn't apply to comparisons between an album from a bloke where every track demonstrates what his voice isn't, and an album of retreads. I'm not buying this for a second. Of course if The Beatles BBC 2 had gone higher than Paul's album, you would have simply said it was a natural and expected course of events because The Beatles as a group was more popular than Paul as a solo artist. Funny how when the "1" Hits Album made the top of the charts and was a worldwide success, you didn't think anything of those tracks being "retreads" . And you do realize that you're saying here that Paul singing with some "weaker voice" has done better than all four Beatles at their peak in the 1960s... I also don't agree with your remark that every track on NEW demonstrates "what his voice isn't". But of course, there is no appealing to you when it comes to such subjects... to you, it's only "The Beatles, All The Time". You have never liked "offbeat" songs or Rockers, nor times when Paul tries something different with his voice. You don't care for vocal performances even as early as 1971 with songs like "Tomorrow" or "Oh Woman Oh Why"... you'll find trouble with Paul's voice there as well. Other than the new song "Early Days", Paul's voice is fine on the NEW album (and I love that his voice sounds weathered on "Early Days", because that adds to the old man style of the singing about when he was younger... this was a sound Paul could not have done when he was 21). You're very hard to please when it comes to ANYTHING by the solo Beatles, and also even when it comes down to basic Rockers in general, really.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Aug 4, 2014 8:33:31 GMT -5
I very firmly do subscribe to the Whole is greater than the Parts theory, but I suspect it doesn't apply to comparisons between an album from a bloke where every track demonstrates what his voice isn't, and an album of retreads. I'm not buying this for a second. Of course if The Beatles BBC 2 had gone higher than Paul's album, you would have simply said it was a natural and expected course of events because The Beatles as a group was more popular than Paul as a solo artist. Funny how when the "1" Hits Album made the top of the charts and was a worldwide success, you didn't think anything of those tracks being "retreads" . And you do realize that you're saying here that Paul singing with some "weaker voice" has done better than all four Beatles at their peak in the 1960s... I also don't agree with your remark that every track on NEW demonstrates "what his voice isn't". But of course, there is no appealing to you when it comes to such subjects... to you, it's only "The Beatles, All The Time". You have never liked "offbeat" songs or Rockers, nor times when Paul tries something different with his voice. You don't care for vocal performances even as early as 1971 with songs like "Tomorrow" or "Oh Woman Oh Why"... you'll find trouble with Paul's voice there as well. Other than the new song "Early Days", Paul's voice is fine on the NEW album (and I love that his voice sounds weathered on "Early Days", because that adds to the old man style of the singing about when he was younger... this was a sound Paul could not have done when he was 21). You're very hard to please when it comes to ANYTHING by the solo Beatles, and also even when it comes down to basic Rockers in general, really. I also subscribe to The Whole is Greater Than The Parts, when it comes to The Beatles. I think most music critics and historians would call this a no-brainer. If one goes back to 1969-70, when the "Parts" started doing solo albums and "The Whole" was releasing their last two albums; Abbey Road, and Let It Be; this is really the only period where both solo works (GPAC, McCartney, Sentimental Journey, & even ATMP) and Beatle albums were "au currant" and one clearly sees The Whole was greater than The Parts. I agree it is not a fair comparison to do this in 2014. If The Beatles had ever released a new album in the 70's, it would have trumped anything any of them did during that period right up thru Double Fantasy. As to "New" and BBC Vol. 2; I'll take BBC anyday. Charts or no charts, it is musically superior, even though it is music from over 50 years ago. Paul's best days musically, vocally, and compositionally, are now clearly behind him. And I mean no disrespect in that comment about one of the most important pop musicians of the last 100 years. The Lennon & McCartney catalogue (Music written by them from 1957-1969) stands alone at the summit. IMO. Beatles Forever.....
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 4, 2014 17:09:57 GMT -5
I also subscribe to The Whole is Greater Than The Parts, when it comes to The Beatles. I think most music critics and historians would call this a no-brainer. Please let's not go by critics and historians, who are instinctively biased toward anything The Beatles did. All that would tell me is that they are stubborn. Their POV would exist only because while The Beatles were still together, they never bombed musically (for which I am glad). But had they gone into the 1970s up until 1980, it is only the common law of averages that they would have had to lay an egg of an album sometime. No, I don't think this is a given. George's ALL THINGS MUST PASS and John's PLASTIC ONO BAND, for example, are two masterpieces which would not nearly have been as good if they had been standard Beatles records; the reason they are as great as they are is because of what they both are on their own. You cannot possibly "know" this for a fact - none of us can. But what we DO know is that Paul and Wings were the biggest act in the 1970s, right along with Elton John. You can't possibly know if The Beatles wouldn't have made a lousy LP or two, like the Rolling Stones did when they kept on going. Of course you'd think that. There are others too like yourself who cannot see past The Beatles ... but in Reality, the performances on BBC 2 are not all "better" than NEW... and neither is every song on BBC 2 unconditionally and automatically "superior" just by virtue of the tracks having all been performed by The Beatles. Most any song off NEW is better than the BBC 2 performances of "Beautiful Dreamer" and "Lend Me Your Comb", for instance... That's such a silly and generic comment, especially when I heard the same thing said about "Strawberry Fields" and "Penny Lane" in 1967 -- and also about Paul's RAM album in 1971, and any other period not long after... it's always "the newer stuff is not as good as the older stuff". I think the "compositionally" part is the silliest. If you were more open-minded and objective about it, and took individual songs of the solo careers, there are many you can find that are better songs than *some* Beatles songs. "Early Days" is as great as anything Paul did in a similar vein with The Beatles. "Everybody Out There" is as good as a "Get Back" . "I could go through the entire solo catalogue and find many such individual exceptions. And it's also unreasonable to think that - if all four Beatles were alive and playing together on all the songs from NEW - all those songs would automatically sound "better". I mean, I am always defending Ringo ... but he's not the drummer that some of Paul's solo drummers were. Nor is George as good a guitarist. You're telling me? I agree -- and they are forever.. however, there ought to be some degree of objectivity. No wonder so many non-Beatles fans dislike us Beatles fans! SOMEDAYS > HONEY PIE #9 DREAM > EVERYBODY'S GOT SOMETHING TO HIDE EXCEPT ME AND MY MONKEY WEIGHT OF THE WORLD > WHAT GOES ON STUCK INSIDE A CLOUD > BLUE JAY WAY
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Aug 4, 2014 17:40:21 GMT -5
I very firmly do subscribe to the Whole is greater than the Parts theory, but I suspect it doesn't apply to comparisons between an album from a bloke where every track demonstrates what his voice isn't, and an album of retreads. I'm not buying this for a second. Of course if The Beatles BBC 2 had gone higher than Paul's album, you would have simply said it was a natural and expected course of events because The Beatles as a group was more popular than Paul as a solo artist. Funny how when the "1" Hits Album made the top of the charts and was a worldwide success, you didn't think anything of those tracks being "retreads" . And you do realize that you're saying here that Paul singing with some "weaker voice" has done better than all four Beatles at their peak in the 1960s... I also don't agree with your remark that every track on NEW demonstrates "what his voice isn't". But of course, there is no appealing to you when it comes to such subjects... to you, it's only "The Beatles, All The Time". You have never liked "offbeat" songs or Rockers, nor times when Paul tries something different with his voice. You don't care for vocal performances even as early as 1971 with songs like "Tomorrow" or "Oh Woman Oh Why"... you'll find trouble with Paul's voice there as well. Other than the new song "Early Days", Paul's voice is fine on the NEW album (and I love that his voice sounds weathered on "Early Days", because that adds to the old man style of the singing about when he was younger... this was a sound Paul could not have done when he was 21). You're very hard to please when it comes to ANYTHING by the solo Beatles, and also even when it comes down to basic Rockers in general, really. Pretty much. So much of the solo stuff would have been better had the others worked on it. And I tend to prefer softer stuff to rock. There are good songs on New: I get little pleasure from listening to the voice I used to love plastered with reverb and echo to disguise its thin reediness. But at least I've listened to New: I haven't listened to disc 2 of BBC2 all the way through yet. I can't be bothered.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Aug 4, 2014 18:38:24 GMT -5
I was much more excited about Paul's New album than the Beatles' BBC 2 album. I think a lot of people thought the BBC album was just songs that weren't good enough for the first collection.
I listened to BBC 2 maybe once. Live at the Star Club was better.
I still haven't listen to NEW much but I'm sure I will keep going back to it. Paul's voice sounds great to me. I would have preferred something a little more hard rocking. Maybe on the next one.
|
|
kc
Beatle Freak
Posts: 1,085
|
Post by kc on Aug 4, 2014 19:22:13 GMT -5
I was much more excited about Paul's New album than the Beatles' BBC 2 album. I think a lot of people thought the BBC album was just songs that weren't good enough for the first collection. I listened to BBC 2 maybe once. Live at the Star Club was better. This is my point of view also. I would have preferred that Vol. 2 had not been released. An alternative marketing strategy would have been to expand the track list of Vol. 1 to include the more desirable songs missing from it that were incorporated into Vol 2. This new two disc set would be the product targeted at the general buyer, teamed with a multi-disc box set of all the BBC material for the serious collector. I still love New, by the way. I often return to it, even if only to play a song, or two. Paul's voice sounds perfectly acceptable to me on most of the record and where he does slightly falter, well, I can live with that.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 5, 2014 16:43:22 GMT -5
I listened to BBC 2 maybe once. Live at the Star Club was better. . I'd rather listen to RINGO THE 4TH over LIVE AT THE STAR CLUB!
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Aug 5, 2014 18:15:18 GMT -5
I listened to BBC 2 maybe once. Live at the Star Club was better. . I'd rather listen to RINGO THE 4TH over LIVE AT THE STAR CLUB! Hmmm, I guess she does do it like she dances! The Star Club has some real rough spots on it but I liked just about every song. Just listen to <<<<[TITLE REMOVED]>>>> Here's the video: <<<<[VIDEO REMOVED>>>> ( )
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 6, 2014 9:29:23 GMT -5
There will have to be another snow blizzard or maybe 40 days of rain before I pull BBC Vol. 2 out again and listen to it. I agree with debjorgo that it is the stuff deemed not good enough for Volume 1.
I have played New several times recently and it is a solid album taken as a whole. But to me there is not any one song on it that is a stand alone great track. And that is not a good thing for today's music listener who cherry picks his/her music on their smart devices . Albums are a dinosaur concept to the majority of music listeners now.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Aug 6, 2014 9:58:48 GMT -5
I also subscribe to The Whole is Greater Than The Parts, when it comes to The Beatles. I think most music critics and historians would call this a no-brainer. Please let's not go by critics and historians, who are instinctively biased toward anything The Beatles did. All that would tell me is that they are stubborn. Their POV would exist only because while The Beatles were still together, they never bombed musically (for which I am glad). But had they gone into the 1970s up until 1980, it is only the common law of averages that they would have had to lay an egg of an album sometime. No, I don't think this is a given. George's ALL THINGS MUST PASS and John's PLASTIC ONO BAND, for example, are two masterpieces which would not nearly have been as good if they had been standard Beatles records; the reason they are as great as they are is because of what they both are on their own. You cannot possibly "know" this for a fact - none of us can. But what we DO know is that Paul and Wings were the biggest act in the 1970s, right along with Elton John. You can't possibly know if The Beatles wouldn't have made a lousy LP or two, like the Rolling Stones did when they kept on going. Of course you'd think that. There are others too like yourself who cannot see past The Beatles ... but in Reality, the performances on BBC 2 are not all "better" than NEW... and neither is every song on BBC 2 unconditionally and automatically "superior" just by virtue of the tracks having all been performed by The Beatles. Most any song off NEW is better than the BBC 2 performances of "Beautiful Dreamer" and "Lend Me Your Comb", for instance... That's such a silly and generic comment, especially when I heard the same thing said about "Strawberry Fields" and "Penny Lane" in 1967 -- and also about Paul's RAM album in 1971, and any other period not long after... it's always "the newer stuff is not as good as the older stuff". I think the "compositionally" part is the silliest. If you were more open-minded and objective about it, and took individual songs of the solo careers, there are many you can find that are better songs than *some* Beatles songs. "Early Days" is as great as anything Paul did in a similar vein with The Beatles. "Everybody Out There" is as good as a "Get Back" . "I could go through the entire solo catalogue and find many such individual exceptions. And it's also unreasonable to think that - if all four Beatles were alive and playing together on all the songs from NEW - all those songs would automatically sound "better". I mean, I am always defending Ringo ... but he's not the drummer that some of Paul's solo drummers were. Nor is George as good a guitarist. You're telling me? I agree -- and they are forever.. however, there ought to be some degree of objectivity. No wonder so many non-Beatles fans dislike us Beatles fans! SOMEDAYS > HONEY PIE #9 DREAM > EVERYBODY'S GOT SOMETHING TO HIDE EXCEPT ME AND MY MONKEY WEIGHT OF THE WORLD > WHAT GOES ON STUCK INSIDE A CLOUD > BLUE JAY WAY "To each his own' as they say. I am totally predjudiced towards The Whole. Guilty as charged. I'll take any solo song from any of them, and if The Whole had gotten together and recorded a version of any of them; well, let's just say it would sure have been thrilling to hear what all four would have brought to it. The magic of "The Whole" with this band is just untouchable when they were at the peak of their powers which I consider 1964 to mid-1967 (death of Brian). BTW; three of the four Beatle songs listed above to compare are songs recorded when the band was entering its "This is my song and the rest of you are simply studio sidemen either showing up to play, or not even present at the recording." They were not collaborative works which represent the best of what The Beatles were known for. "What Goes On' was one of John's early Quarrymen creations that represented him at the very beginning of his musical maturation. It just never got onto a record until 1965, probably as a "filler" track. Totally respect the other side of this argument....Just disagree. Let's do; IMAGINE>YESTERDAY (Difficult since both were basically one man songs) (But it is John vs. Paul at their best) MY SWEET LORD>IF I NEEDED SOMEONE EARLY DAYS>IN MY LIFE GIVE PEACE A CHANCE>ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE BAND ON THE RUN>ABBEY ROAD SIDE TWO MEDLEY (YNGMYM thru The End) The idea here is to put the best up against the best in both categories.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Aug 6, 2014 10:04:38 GMT -5
There will have to be another snow blizzard or maybe 40 days of rain before I pull BBC Vol. 2 out again and listen to it. I agree with debjorgo that it is the stuff deemed not good enough for Volume 1. I have played New several times recently and it is a solid album taken as a whole. But to me there is not any one song on it that is a stand alone great track. And that is not a good thing for today's music listener who cherry picks his/her music on their smart devices . Albums are a dinosaur concept to the majority of music listeners now. I have BBC 2 on my IPOD and play it in my car as a whole like I am listening to the BBC on the radio in the car in the early 60's. I also have "Early Days" on my IPOD as well and listen to it a lot because of the lyrics. I wince at the shaky voice and wish Paul had written this 10 years ago and recorded it then. It also reminds me that Paul is near the end of his vocal career as a ballad singer when I hear it, and that makes me sad.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 6, 2014 16:52:39 GMT -5
I also have "Early Days" on my IPOD as well and listen to it a lot because of the lyrics. I wince at the shaky voice and wish Paul had written this 10 years ago and recorded it then. It also reminds me that Paul is near the end of his vocal career as a ballad singer when I hear it, and that makes me sad. Don't be sad over it. Paul is still going strong for an aged Rock Legend in his 70s. The shaky voice in "Early Days" should be considered part of its charm -- it's an old, world-weary guy singing about his youth, like an old Blues guitarist. The song wouldn't be what it is without that. I think it's been verified somewhere that Paul could have chosen to "sweeten" the vocal, but he wanted it like that.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 6, 2014 16:56:33 GMT -5
I have played New several times recently and it is a solid album taken as a whole. But to me there is not any one song on it that is a stand alone great track. And that is not a good thing for today's music listener who cherry picks his/her music on their smart devices . Albums are a dinosaur concept to the majority of music listeners now. Who cares about the clueless "sheeple" listeners now? The more sophisticated ones still know about albums as a concept, and Paul's NEW still made it to #3 in the US. I think "Early Days", "New", "Save Us", "Queenie Eye", "I Can Bet" and "Everybody Out There" are fine stand-alone tracks. Moreso than the album-only stuff you love off WILD LIFE and DRIVING RAIN... I mean, let's be honest!
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 6, 2014 17:14:33 GMT -5
"To each his own' as they say. I am totally predjudiced towards The Whole. Guilty as charged. Well, my thinking is that naturally anyone may have a "preference", but to automatically conclude that any Beatles song is better than any solo song is a bit much. It may be interesting, but I don't know if the results would always be "better". The reason McCARTNEY, PLASTIC ONO BAND, and ALL THINGS MUST PASS are what they are is because --- well... they are what they are, without all four Beatles! This one I wouldn't agree with. I can't stand GIVE PEACE A CHANCE, and it's extremely monotonous. At least ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE has some attempt at other lyrics! I wouldn't agree with this one either; I think the Medley is superior. Weelll..... I thought the idea was that "NOTHING Solo could surpass anything they did as The Beatles". INSTANT KARMA > COME TOGETHER
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Aug 6, 2014 21:41:38 GMT -5
"To each his own' as they say. I am totally predjudiced towards The Whole. Guilty as charged. Well, my thinking is that naturally anyone may have a "preference", but to automatically conclude that any Beatles song is better than any solo song is a bit much. It may be interesting, but I don't know if the results would always be "better". The reason McCARTNEY, PLASTIC ONO BAND, and ALL THINGS MUST PASS are what they are is because --- well... they are what they are, without all four Beatles! This one I wouldn't agree with. I can't stand GIVE PEACE A CHANCE, and it's extremely monotonous. At least ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE has some attempt at other lyrics! I wouldn't agree with this one either; I think the Medley is superior. Weelll..... I thought the idea was that "NOTHING Solo could surpass anything they did as The Beatles". INSTANT KARMA > COME TOGETHER I'd go with Come Together.... You can easily find a Beatle song that is not as good as a solo song. Just throw Mr. Moonlight, Why Don't We Do It In The Road, Revolution #9, Wait, or whatever up against Imagine, ATMP, or Band On The Run. But I think the argument I that The Whole is less than The Parts just does not hold water in the case of The Beatles.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 6, 2014 23:13:22 GMT -5
I have played New several times recently and it is a solid album taken as a whole. But to me there is not any one song on it that is a stand alone great track. And that is not a good thing for today's music listener who cherry picks his/her music on their smart devices . Albums are a dinosaur concept to the majority of music listeners now. Who cares about the clueless "sheeple" listeners now? The more sophisticated ones still know about albums as a concept, and Paul's NEW still made it to #3 in the US. I think "Early Days", "New", "Save Us", "Queenie Eye", "I Can Bet" and "Everybody Out There" are fine stand-alone tracks. Moreso than the album-only stuff you love off WILD LIFE and DRIVING RAIN... I mean, let's be honest! I am being very honest. Yeah, Beatles' Boardies like us shot our wad and the best we could muster for Paul was a #3, for one solitary week then it dropped, and dropped, and dropped..... I have researched the numbers, if just a third of the people who saw Paul live in the US in 2013 had purchased New, Paul would have creamed Pearl Jam for #1. But noooooooo, those so-called fans who packed the arenas in 2013 just wanted to hear Beatles and BOTR and V&M era Wings oldies, nothing else!
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Aug 6, 2014 23:56:34 GMT -5
Who cares about the clueless "sheeple" listeners now? The more sophisticated ones still know about albums as a concept, and Paul's NEW still made it to #3 in the US. I think "Early Days", "New", "Save Us", "Queenie Eye", "I Can Bet" and "Everybody Out There" are fine stand-alone tracks. Moreso than the album-only stuff you love off WILD LIFE and DRIVING RAIN... I mean, let's be honest! I am being very honest. Yeah, Beatles' Boardies like us shot our wad and the best we could muster for Paul was a #3, for one solitary week then it dropped, and dropped, and dropped..... I have researched the numbers, if just a third of the people who saw Paul live in the US in 2013 had purchased New, Paul would have creamed Pearl Jam for #1. But noooooooo, those so-called fans who packed the arenas in 2013 just wanted to hear Beatles and BOTR and V&M era Wings oldies, nothing else! This is going to piss you off: music.yahoo.com/blogs/chart-watch/chart-watch-tom-pettys-record-setting-american-band-164053221.html
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 7, 2014 7:13:38 GMT -5
I personally am thrilled at this, as I like Tom Petty! But nobody is going to tell me that Petty has more worldwide fans than Paul McCartney does to help boost the new album to #1. Petty's timing was probably smarter than Paul's was, and did not collide with other hot acts.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 7, 2014 7:19:00 GMT -5
I am being very honest. Yeah, Beatles' Boardies like us shot our wad and the best we could muster for Paul was a #3, for one solitary week then it dropped, and dropped, and dropped..... I meant to be honest that no songs on WILD LIFE or DRIVING RAIN are "stand alone great tracks". Come to think of it, where are the stand-alone great tracks off CHAOS AND CREATION? I loved CHAOS when it first came out, but time has left that album feeling like a real dirge of gloom to me after Paul's more upbeat and accessible NEW gem! I agree with you about the faux "Paul fans" at his shows who don't give a hoot about anything other than tired Beatles moldies and a few '70s Wings Hits. . However, you can't tell me that Pearl Jam has more worldwide fans in 2013 than Paul McCartney has. (Or Tom Petty, since his new album just went to #1). It just isn't possible.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 7, 2014 7:26:44 GMT -5
You can easily find a Beatle song that is not as good as a solo song. Just throw Mr. Moonlight, Why Don't We Do It In The Road, Revolution #9, Wait, or whatever up against Imagine, ATMP, or Band On The Run. No, I'm not talking about mediocre Beatles covers (like "Mr. Moonlight"), or half-baked snippets and experimental loops (like "Why Don't We Do It" and "Revolution 9"). I'm talking about some full-fledged Beatles originals too.I have never made such a statement. Just that there are plenty of good - and great - solo songs in the Ex-Beatles' catalogue... and that not "any" Beatles song automatically trumps "any" solo song, just because it's The Beatles. I can't recall at the moment ... do you own and know all the albums by all four Solo Beatles, or do you just know some?
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 7, 2014 10:43:18 GMT -5
I am being very honest. Yeah, Beatles' Boardies like us shot our wad and the best we could muster for Paul was a #3, for one solitary week then it dropped, and dropped, and dropped..... I have researched the numbers, if just a third of the people who saw Paul live in the US in 2013 had purchased New, Paul would have creamed Pearl Jam for #1. But noooooooo, those so-called fans who packed the arenas in 2013 just wanted to hear Beatles and BOTR and V&M era Wings oldies, nothing else! This is going to piss you off: music.yahoo.com/blogs/chart-watch/chart-watch-tom-pettys-record-setting-american-band-164053221.htmlActually, this thrills me! I am a huge Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers' fan and was wondering when this album was finally coming out(I am not such a huge fan as to do internet research on it ). Listen, I agree with your previous statements sayne that it doesn't really matter and JoeK's similar thought that it is the luck or planning of the release date but I always harp on it because #1's are important to Paul and I believe he said as much in the interview in his last cover appearance on RS. And you noted last October sayne that Paul was really working hard to plug New by several live TV appearances and some one-off, short appearances in high profile places. I am happy for Tom Petty and The Heartbreakers. They kick out solid Rock and Roll and if not earth-shattering then at least solid and enjoyable to me for one. I missed him live this year and I rarely miss his Indy appearances.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Aug 7, 2014 10:47:02 GMT -5
You can easily find a Beatle song that is not as good as a solo song. Just throw Mr. Moonlight, Why Don't We Do It In The Road, Revolution #9, Wait, or whatever up against Imagine, ATMP, or Band On The Run. No, I'm not talking about mediocre Beatles covers (like "Mr. Moonlight"), or half-baked snippets and experimental loops (like "Why Don't We Do It" and "Revolution 9"). I'm talking about some full-fledged Beatles originals too.I have never made such a statement. Just that there are plenty of good - and great - solo songs in the Ex-Beatles' catalogue... and that not "any" Beatles song automatically trumps "any" solo song, just because it's The Beatles. I can't recall at the moment ... do you own and know all the albums by all four Solo Beatles, or do you just know some? I own about half a dozen solo albums Joe. ATMP, Double Fantasy, Flaming Pie, Give My Regards To Broad Street, Give Peace A Chance, and George's last album (Can't remember the namee at moment, I am up in Canada, not home. I also own a bunch of Beatle solo singles on my Ipod that are my favs off of a number of albums.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Aug 7, 2014 11:08:25 GMT -5
No, I'm not talking about mediocre Beatles covers (like "Mr. Moonlight"), or half-baked snippets and experimental loops (like "Why Don't We Do It" and "Revolution 9"). I'm talking about some full-fledged Beatles originals too.I have never made such a statement. Just that there are plenty of good - and great - solo songs in the Ex-Beatles' catalogue... and that not "any" Beatles song automatically trumps "any" solo song, just because it's The Beatles. I can't recall at the moment ... do you own and know all the albums by all four Solo Beatles, or do you just know some? I own about half a dozen solo albums Joe. ATMP, Double Fantasy, Flaming Pie, Give My Regards To Broad Street, Give Peace A Chance, and George's last album (Can't remember the namee at moment, I am up in Canada, not home. I also own a bunch of Beatle solo singles on my Ipod that are my favs off of a number of albums. I don't want to get into this debate, but two no. 1 Beatle singles, Get Back and Hello Goodbye are pretty mediocre when comparing to some of the solo hits. I like them both but acknowledge that there's not much happening there.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Aug 7, 2014 13:48:06 GMT -5
I own about half a dozen solo albums Joe. ATMP, Double Fantasy, Flaming Pie, Give My Regards To Broad Street, Give Peace A Chance, and George's last album (Can't remember the namee at moment, I am up in Canada, not home. I also own a bunch of Beatle solo singles on my Ipod that are my favs off of a number of albums. I don't want to get into this debate, but two no. 1 Beatle singles, Get Back and Hello Goodbye are pretty mediocre when comparing to some of the solo hits. I like them both but acknowledge that there's not much happening there. I don't want to compare songs either. I just wanted to voice my opinion on this thread that The Whole is greater than the Parts. It just morphed into song comparisons, which I really don't want to get into too deeper as well. Get Back opens the LOVE show in Vegas, so it clearly is somebody's favorite. Giles Martin?
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Aug 7, 2014 17:46:42 GMT -5
I guess Petty is in Weird Al's league.
Paul's is thought of as an oldies band, like the Beach Boy. Their last studio album only made to number 3. If he toured with all new music, I think he'd debut higher. He'd grow a new audience. Of course Paul has said he loves the feeling he gets from the audience when he does Beatles' songs.
I'm wondering if his label gets the same push on amazon as a major label would. I've been seeing Petty's album in my recommendations for about a month. It says it's because I bought Jack White, GOASTT, Oasis Definitely Maybe Deluxe Edition, and the two new Wings "Books".
|
|