|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Sept 1, 2013 17:34:55 GMT -5
The promo single for "New." Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Sept 2, 2013 2:19:10 GMT -5
I think its great including the lyrics. Its a song about reaching and awakening your potential and living your life as a self-actualized happy human being witrh no regrets about what you didnt't do. Its awakening because he said all his life he didn't know how much he could accomplish, he kept pushing himself and found success that way. He is saying we don't know that "when we are new" but we must discover this for ourselves. Very wise. I like the line about there being no guarantees in life and we should go for it--we've got nothing to lose. Also he says don't look at me, I can't tell you what you want to be, but I can tell you that is the truth. You need to go for it. It a combination of Hey Jude encourangement and Too Many People self-determination (don't let them tell you what you want to be". He is saying when life was new he had no idea he would accomplish what he did, but look at him now. At the end he repeats "when we were new" and then he changes it to "now we are new" meaning its a never ending process and never too late. We can learn how we can live our life and be happy and successful and we have the freedom to do so. So go for it. I think the lyric, though a bit oblique, really speaks to young people (of all ages). "We can do what we want, We can live as we choose. You see there's no guarantee, We got nothing to lose." I think those lyrics are the kind BS fortune cookie philosophy easy for a near billionaire oldie pop star to pop off about. Most of us can't do what we want or live as we choose because we aren't rich and are forced to do things we don't want to do(i.e. work) just to pay the mortgage, car payment, student loans, etc. Those lyrics sound like freeloader James McCartney's national anthem! Young people as a whole will instantly ignore this song because of the artist. Paul ain't on their radar. Macca was last on young people's radar in 1976. And what about those horns RTP? Are they real or fake and if fake then Paul is lame. We need an answer on those horns. I heard Spew several times on Sirius radio this weekend and it is actually getting worse in my opinion as the horn sound is really bugging me, not knowing if they are real or fake but sounding fake to me.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Sept 2, 2013 6:31:31 GMT -5
And what about those horns RTP? Are they real or fake and if fake then Paul is lame. We need an answer on those horns. I heard Spew several times on Sirius radio this weekend and it is actually getting worse in my opinion as the horn sound is really bugging me, not knowing if they are real or fake but sounding fake to me. The song "New" is better than anything on THRIVING PAIN, Johnny . I do agree with you about the lyrics though. Nothing remarkable, and typical Paul "June/Moon/Spoon" stuff, as Yoko used to say to John. I do like the new Paul song. Unlike you I have not heard it on the general radio stations at all yet, except for tailored Beatles Radio Shows. The song stays in my head and is catchy, which is the main point to a decent Pop song. As for all this controversy about the "horns", I hadn't even noticed. If they're real or fake I don't care.... I mean, I would prefer REAL if I can get them, but I only care about how the song sounds to my ears in the end. This song NEW appeals to me, but it's no great classic, IMO .
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Sept 2, 2013 8:45:01 GMT -5
I think its great including the lyrics. Its a song about reaching and awakening your potential and living your life as a self-actualized happy human being witrh no regrets about what you didnt't do. Its awakening because he said all his life he didn't know how much he could accomplish, he kept pushing himself and found success that way. He is saying we don't know that "when we are new" but we must discover this for ourselves. Very wise. I like the line about there being no guarantees in life and we should go for it--we've got nothing to lose. Also he says don't look at me, I can't tell you what you want to be, but I can tell you that is the truth. You need to go for it. It a combination of Hey Jude encourangement and Too Many People self-determination (don't let them tell you what you want to be". He is saying when life was new he had no idea he would accomplish what he did, but look at him now. At the end he repeats "when we were new" and then he changes it to "now we are new" meaning its a never ending process and never too late. We can learn how we can live our life and be happy and successful and we have the freedom to do so. So go for it. I think the lyric, though a bit oblique, really speaks to young people (of all ages). "We can do what we want, We can live as we choose. You see there's no guarantee, We got nothing to lose." I think those lyrics are the kind BS fortune cookie philosophy easy for a near billionaire oldie pop star to pop off about. Most of us can't do what we want or live as we choose because we aren't rich and are forced to do things we don't want to do(i.e. work) just to pay the mortgage, car payment, student loans, etc. Those lyrics sound like freeloader James McCartney's national anthem! Young people as a whole will instantly ignore this song because of the artist. Paul ain't on their radar. Macca was last on young people's radar in 1976. And what about those horns RTP? Are they real or fake and if fake then Paul is lame. We need an answer on those horns. I heard Spew several times on Sirius radio this weekend and it is actually getting worse in my opinion as the horn sound is really bugging me, not knowing if they are real or fake but sounding fake to me. I haven't had the chance to hear it on Sirius or other radio, but the horns sound muted or compressed to me, not necessarily fake or sythesized. I think they were trying to get that muted horn sound that was used in the 60s. As for the lyrics, it has nothing to do with wealth or poverty. When he says we can live as we chose, I said it spoke to the young people in light of all the liberalizing of sexual taboos and drug laws. But it goes beyond that to the point that we are realizing more freedom of the mind despite the current regime. Money or no money, people can live as they chose. Only with money, you have more choices.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Sept 2, 2013 8:53:58 GMT -5
...we are realizing more freedom of the mind despite the current regime. ? You understand the difference between conservative and liberal, don't you?
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Sept 2, 2013 13:59:08 GMT -5
...we are realizing more freedom of the mind despite the current regime. ? You understand the difference between conservative and liberal, don't you? What I am talking about is a movement that is Libertarian in nature. If a candidate can come along and properly frame this policical point of view, he would win most of the young voters. Rand Paul is the nearest with the most name recognition. Yet he is also conservative. Advocating personal freedoms and being liberated from government control (abortion on demand, which I abhore, uninhibited drug use and marriage defined in the most extreme ways) is a form of anti-government point of view. The irony is that this is all with the backdrop of Obama Care--the worst most anti freedom anti American peice of legislatiive garbage to find its way out of committee. With this law, your pesonal and until now private medical records will be in a database in Washington. Do you expect them to stay secrure? Also, with goverment subsidizing insurance, they can make the case that they can tell you what you should eat, how much you should weight etc. because they are paying for your transgressions. And that is only the beginning of that damn law. When you say to someone go ahead, you have nothing to lose, that is minimizing the influence of religion because with God you always have to answer to your behavior. I don't know if that is what Paul had in mind, but it is clear that someone who has nothing to lose can be dangerous--no beliefs, no morals, no consequence for bad behavior except man's puny legislative prohibitions.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Sept 2, 2013 14:29:57 GMT -5
Ha Ha. Pepper's drinking the tea.
Abortion is a personal freedom. The Supreme Court ruled that the constitution had no say. I hate the way conservatives make it seem like abortion is done with no caring. It is a very hard decision. Most pro-choicers opt to have children, even when they were not planned. They know it stops a life and they don't need to be reminded.
I'm not going to counter-point everything you said. This is not the forum. I'll just say I don't agree with any on your points.
I don't respect anyone who is only a decent person because they think some giant being in the sky is going to throw a thunderbolt at them. (Not a thunderbolt thrown at you, just a comment about the people you describe in your comment, afraid of final judgment.)
.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Sept 2, 2013 14:35:39 GMT -5
Back on the subject. I just got the single on iTunes. I couldn't stand that I had to search for it. Apparently it's not a hot seller. I like it better than the new Gaga song.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Sept 2, 2013 18:04:42 GMT -5
Back on the subject. I just got the single on iTunes. I couldn't stand that I had to search for it. Apparently it's not a hot seller. I like it better than the new Gaga song. Spew would be #1 if real horns were used.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Sept 2, 2013 18:47:05 GMT -5
Back on the subject. I just got the single on iTunes. I couldn't stand that I had to search for it. Apparently it's not a hot seller. I like it better than the new Gaga song. Spew would be #1 if real horns were used. #1 in Horns Magazine anyway. (Be careful searching that title.)
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Sept 3, 2013 23:30:42 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2013 5:09:00 GMT -5
Thanks JSD, some good feedback for Paul in those reviews
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Sept 4, 2013 20:37:40 GMT -5
There is now a teaser video of Paul singing the sing with his band, which further supports that it probably really is Wicks on the key"horns", so I hereby dub the single: "Ewwwww!"
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Sept 4, 2013 20:43:19 GMT -5
Didn't the Beatles invent synths, sounds recorded to tape and then played back like instruments? The Beatles would have been ELP X2 if they had had a true synth back in '66 - '67.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Sept 4, 2013 22:33:50 GMT -5
If that song didnt have Paul McCartney's name on it would anyone listen to it twice?
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Sept 4, 2013 22:37:04 GMT -5
The reviewers say it invokes the Revolver era. Do you think Lennon wudda let a piece of nothing like this anywhere near the Revolver album?
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Sept 4, 2013 22:38:40 GMT -5
For a song called "New" is there anything particularly new about it?
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Sept 4, 2013 22:39:14 GMT -5
And yeah Im being a bitch.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Sept 4, 2013 22:47:56 GMT -5
Well, it was nice to wake up this morning and hear the NEW McCartney single. How many more NEW opportunities are we going to have? The first time listens of NEW music is getting rarer and some sad day, there will be no more. I personally love it. It's what Paul does best. Write a catchy tune that sticks in your head while lifting your spirits. I think it sounds a bit Brian Wilson and that's OK with me. At the same time i completely agree with what Pbirdchat said.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Sept 4, 2013 22:50:24 GMT -5
Its a new McCartney song. Whats wrong with that? I'd like to know. So here he goes. AgAAAIN!
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Sept 4, 2013 22:51:52 GMT -5
Its just that Paul hasnt done anything thats moved me since Linda died.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2013 4:38:12 GMT -5
Well Done Paul You are Ace
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Sept 5, 2013 7:04:02 GMT -5
Didn't the Beatles invent synths, sounds recorded to tape and then played back like instruments? The Beatles would have been ELP X2 if they had had a true synth back in '66 - '67. I like the mellotron, which in some ways was like the first string "sampler". It serves its purpose, and i like hearing Paul use one. As for faux horns, I generally have no problem with fake horns when I record, since I don't have the luxury of being a billionaire. But man, if I had 1/1000th of Paul's bread- I would get a real horn section, for both live and most especially recording. Unacceptable for the song. I hope they are real, and spectacular .
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Sept 5, 2013 8:53:49 GMT -5
. . . If a candidate can come along and properly frame this policical point of view, he would win most of the young voters . . . Not speaking specifically about any particular political view, but aren't you basically saying "If a candidate make shit smell like a flower" or "If a candidate can make war sound like peace" or "If a candidate can make this sound like that"? Now, speaking about a political view, that's what the Republicans said after the last Presidential election. Instead of thinking that their views just were out-of-touch with how people today saw the world, they said that their messaging was bad. Instead of saying that perhaps Americans liked President Obama's job performance or his agenda, they said he did a better job of controlling the message. Well, in politics, as in ones personal life, you won't go far if you put the blame on something external, rather than internal. Take ownership. If you're fat, it's your fault, not McDonald's. If Libertarians ever take hold, it will not be because of the messaging. It will be because people will move in that direction. It's like gay marriage and pot. It wasn't better rhetoric that moved people. It was the slow change of peoples points of view based on experience. Yes, sometimes a great speech or campaign can change hearts and minds. But, usually speeches "speak to the choir." Truthfully, I am libertarian (note small "l") in a lot of my views. But, it's not going to be "proper framing" to get me to vote for a Libertarian candidate, at this time. I've voted Green Party many many times, so I'm not married to the Democrats, nor do I have an aversion to third parties. It's a point of view based on how I see the world that moves my vote, not a great message.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Sept 5, 2013 9:06:27 GMT -5
. . . Advocating personal freedoms and being liberated from government control (abortion on demand, which I abhore, uninhibited drug use and marriage defined in the most extreme ways) is a form of anti-government point of view . . . So, I guess "anti-choice" laws, absolute harshly punitive incarceration for marijuana, laws regulating what one does in the bedroom with a consenting adult, laws regulating who one can love or marry are examples of the kind of freedoms "anti-big government" people love.
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Sept 5, 2013 10:35:56 GMT -5
When you say to someone go ahead, you have nothing to lose, that is minimizing the influence of religion because with God you always have to answer to your behavior. I don't know if that is what Paul had in mind, but it is clear that someone who has nothing to lose can be dangerous--no beliefs, no morals, no consequence for bad behavior except man's puny legislative prohibitions. That's no basis for a form of government or justice system. You get what you deserve when you're dead.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Sept 5, 2013 10:45:49 GMT -5
. . . Advocating personal freedoms and being liberated from government control (abortion on demand, which I abhore, uninhibited drug use and marriage defined in the most extreme ways) is a form of anti-government point of view . . . So, I guess "anti-choice" laws, absolute harshly punitive incarceration for marijuana, laws regulating what one does in the bedroom with a consenting adult, laws regulating who one can love or marry are examples of the kind of freedoms "anti-big government" people love. Its not a straight line, its a circle. For the relative political shades (U S version) you start with conservative with the hand straight up (with people like me and Senator Ted Cruz of Texas) then going clockwise you go to quarter past the hour with people like President Bush and Senator Orin Hatch and then half past the hour with people like Senators John McaCain and Lindsay "Goober" Graham and John Boehner (what a disgrace he is as speaker) and then soon followed by Congresswoman Nancy Pelsosi and Senator Barbara (I'm not a dwarf) Boxer and later with President (I'm not a Muslim) Obama. Finally you come back toward the top of the hour where Libertarians live and at the point they and Conservatives darn near meet. Both groups want the government out of their lives. Its just with abortion, Conservatives are advocating for the unborn baby, not the mother who should know better and that even if the prophelactic and birth control pills fail, she has a responsibiltiy because it was she who let someone into the Oval Orafice. Conservatives are not against consenting adults doing what they want in their own bedrooms. The just don't want it forced on them. They don't want them using the public parks as their master bedroom and the beaches as their private backyard. We agree they have the right to be queer different. Just don't force it on us and demand our imprimatur on your choice of behavior. Don't look for justification or approval from the rest of the world by usurping the institution of marriage. Call it civil union and give them the same rights. They should be aware of what a great country they live in that allows such freedom. In Russia, they handle this subject in a very severe manner. And no, I don't agree with Russia. And I don't believe in harsh laws against marijuana. I just don't think legalizing sends the right message. It didn't work in the Netherlands and they are finding it backfiring in Colorado and the state of Washinngton. Too much dope turns you into one, and many people can't control themselves. It makes you lazy and affects your driving. Heavy use affects your brain and other parts of your body. Why do we want to encourage that? Wanting the government to control dangerous substances and being Conservative are not oxymoronic. (I know, just moronic).
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Sept 5, 2013 10:49:56 GMT -5
When you say to someone go ahead, you have nothing to lose, that is minimizing the influence of religion because with God you always have to answer to your behavior. I don't know if that is what Paul had in mind, but it is clear that someone who has nothing to lose can be dangerous--no beliefs, no morals, no consequence for bad behavior except man's puny legislative prohibitions. That's no basis for a form of government or justice system. You get what you deserve when you're dead. For a believer, man's laws are puny next to the power of God. For a non-believer, let's just hope he has no anti-social tendancies. If he thinks he has nothing to lose and thinks he won't get caught, look out.
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Sept 5, 2013 10:59:31 GMT -5
That's no basis for a form of government or justice system. You get what you deserve when you're dead. For a believer, man's laws are puny next to the power of God. For a non-believer, let's just hope he has no anti-social tendancies. If he thinks he has nothing to lose and thinks he won't get caught, look out. The problem is, that according to his book the only crime he can't forgive is non-belief. Committing any other crime still gets you into heaven. So I say again, that's no basis for a form of government or justice. Especially since there's no actual evidence of an afterlife and people get punished.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Sept 5, 2013 13:59:11 GMT -5
. . . Conservatives are not against consenting adults doing what they want in their own bedrooms. The just don't want it forced on them . . . Oh, really? When many conservatives see two men or two women kissing each other, they will say "I don't want to be forced to seeing that." So they want laws that will protect them from seeing "the gay." They may see themselves as being very "progressive" when they say such things as "I don't care if you're gay, but be gay in your own house, not where I can see it." . . . Oh, I forgot this: Conservatives are advocating for the unborn baby, not the mother who should know better and that even if the prophelactic and birth control pills fail, she has a responsibiltiy because it was she who let someone into the Oval Orafice. So, the man has no culpability in this? There is not one male dominated culture that does not put the blame on women when it comes to issues of gender. It's her fault she got pregnant, it's her fault she did not give me a male child, it's her fault she got raped, it's her fault that I could not control myself after she said "no," etc. It was Eve's fault Adam ate the apple. Jeez! Men need to "man up."
|
|