|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 2, 2013 19:19:15 GMT -5
Truth is that Paul lives off the cheers of yesteryear and gets downright angry and dejected as the masses flock to the refreshment stands during his later solo ventures. What were the "bathroom and refreshments" songs in 1976? They weren't The Beatles songs, I'd bet. They weren't hits like SILLY LOVE SONGS and BAND ON THE RUN, but I'd bet people drained their lizards during "new songs" like CALL ME BACK AGAIN (which I love), MEDICINE JAR (love too!), and so on. This phenomenon of people wanting to hear the older or more popular or familiar songs is nothing new. You're right -- Paul HAS to do the "oldies" because every time he does another tour, there are first-timers in the audience -- not only 10 year old fans, but even 60 year olds who never got around to seeing him yet. Please understand that personally, I agree. I wouldn't care if Paul did NO MORE BEATLES SONGS in future shows. I would love him to make each and every song some solo album track he's never done live before. When I speak of Paul's great Set Lists of recent decades, that's from the perspective of "seeing paul do these for one show, for a fan's first time". (Not taking into account a half dozen similar times with HEY JUDE and ELEANOR RIGBY over and over). You bring up "obscure WA and PEPPER songs", but there was a time when it was a new thing to see Paul do FIXING A HOLE and GETTING BETTER, or HELTER SKELTER and I WILL. No, he didn't do UNCLE ALBERT, but he did TOO MANY PEOPLE (which is probably more obscure than the #1 Unc) . |
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Apr 2, 2013 22:33:41 GMT -5
Joe, I respond to all of your points. You wait until Rockshow is re-issued. I've studied it from boots and from the McCartney Collection. During The Beatles songs in WOA, the teens all politely applaud and it is only the older college guys with facial hair like 1970's porn stars who go crazy!
And didn't you see where I said "Cut Me Some Slack" and "Sing The Changes" were awesome live because Paul can sing those live like he did on the studio version. We agree there so who is being contrary?
WWL was criminally ignored in 1971 because the Rock Press blackballed it because Paul was not overtly political(meaning Far Left-Wing) like John Lennon. That is the only reason WWL was slammed, simply to attack Paul, the man who would not go Red and who allegedly broke up The Beatles!
The point being, WWL is a new album because no one has listened to it properly and given it a chance. Like sheep we all bought into the press and even the early Beatles books slammed it because the writers were sheep too! If Paul did WWL live today, it would have less baggage than any other solo album!
I stand by my call: Sir Paul McCartney stop doing Beatles songs in concert and I dare you to have the balls to stick with your solo music. To do otherwise is to admit defeat.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Apr 3, 2013 1:37:15 GMT -5
Joe, I respond to all of your points. You wait until Rockshow is re-issued. I've studied it from boots and from the McCartney Collection. During The Beatles songs in WOA, the teens all politely applaud and it is only the older college guys with facial hair like 1970's porn stars who go crazy! And didn't you see where I said "Cut Me Some Slack" and "Sing The Changes" were awesome live because Paul can sing those live like he did on the studio version. We agree there so who is being contrary? WWL was criminally ignored in 1971 because the Rock Press blackballed it because Paul was not overtly political(meaning Far Left-Wing) like John Lennon. That is the only reason WWL was slammed, simply to attack Paul, the man who would not go Red and who allegedly broke up The Beatles! The point being, WWL is a new album because no one has listened to it properly and given it a chance. Like sheep we all bought into the press and even the early Beatles books slammed it because the writers were sheep too! If Paul did WWL live today, it would have less baggage than any other solo album! I stand by my call: Sir Paul McCartney stop doing Beatles songs in concert and I dare you to have the balls to stick with your solo music. To do otherwise is to admit defeat. It will never happen. |
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Apr 3, 2013 3:26:27 GMT -5
If he does that, no-one will go to his concerts.
And the press didn't boycott WWL, the public did, because it was crap.
|
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Apr 3, 2013 5:01:35 GMT -5
Let's keep a little perspective, gentleman. The public did not boycott Wild Life. Wild Life was a big hit. It brushed the top 10 in the US and UK and went gold (selling a million copies) in America. It hit #3 Down Under and #5 in Canada. Hardly a flop.
And yes, I think Paul intentionally put it out to be a career/artistic statement. He was clearly not trying for a blockbuster, which I think is a good thing. Taken on its own terms, it's a very enjoyable, catchy album of homespun tunes with a very earthy vibe (I much prefer that vibe to the 'putting on a show' vibe of the mid-70s or the sterility of the 80s).
|
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Apr 3, 2013 9:07:13 GMT -5
Let's keep a little perspective, gentleman. The public did not boycott Wild Life. Wild Life was a big hit. It brushed the top 10 in the US and UK and went gold (selling a million copies) in America. It hit #3 Down Under and #5 in Canada. Hardly a flop. And yes, I think Paul intentionally put it out to be a career/artistic statement. He was clearly not trying for a blockbuster, which I think is a good thing. Taken on its own terms, it's a very enjoyable, catchy album of homespun tunes with a very earthy vibe (I much prefer that vibe to the 'putting on a show' vibe of the mid-70s or the sterility of the 80s). Good points Panther on sales for WWL and Paul's intent for it. I still think though it is the least played Paul solo album(I call all Paul albums starting with McCartney solo whether Wings are included or not) even though many rushed out and bought it upon release. I know years later I bought it just to say I had it and I drank the Kool-Aid of "The Beatles: An Illustrated Record" and "The Beatles Forever" so I played it once and shelved it, not giving it a chance. I suspect those original purchasers did the same. Like vectis, they wanted Abbey Road. Paul was not interested in that and he was focused on his young family and the wake of the Beatles' implosion as there are many veiled references in WWL to his former best friend. But mostly Paul was feeling the sunshine of artistic freedom to be himself and make music simply and quickly without the George Martin over-production |
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Apr 3, 2013 10:49:28 GMT -5
My apologies - what i said wasn't exactly what I meant.
McCartney and Ram had both sold relatively well, and Ram was much slicker than McCartney and had gone some way towards restoring the confidence of those who, how can I put it?, didn't subscribe to what at the time was not yet called the JSD Postulate. So, yes, a lot of people, myself included, bought WWL without a thought - at the time I would have bought his nose pickings if they'd come out on LP.
But WWL was a rude awakening for a lot of us who found it difficult to believe that the architect of Sgt Pepper and Abbey Road could release an LP as BAD as this. There was the crap excuse in the "liner notes" (even the packaging was poor value), but whatever he was trying to achieve, it didn't work for me and for a lot of others. It was NEVER and album which I happily took round to friends to listen to, I was ashamed of it.
I'm pretty sure that those who were less committed "must buy" fans than me dropped automatic McCartney purchases after WWL, and this was reflected in the sales of RRS and even the initial sales of BOTR.
|
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Apr 3, 2013 10:55:56 GMT -5
Inside that wrapper is the music they made. Can you dig it?
|
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Apr 3, 2013 12:33:42 GMT -5
Inside that wrapper is the music they made. Can you dig it? I like that. Simple. Says what needs to be said. In 2013 it is quite easy to dig the music because we can listen to the music free of all of the 1971 prejudices against Paul. WWL completely satisfies me for what it is, a postcard of where Paul was at at that moment. Not a bloated novel that some seem to prefer. "Mumbo" represents total freedom to me so what a great start. It opens my mind for what follows. I laugh, cry and love to WWL. That's all music needs to do. |
|
|
|
Post by heysaboda on Apr 3, 2013 14:36:05 GMT -5
Inside that wrapper is the music they made. Can you dig it? I like that. Simple. Says what needs to be said. In 2013 it is quite easy to dig the music because we can listen to the music free of all of the 1971 prejudices against Paul. WWL completely satisfies me for what it is, a postcard of where Paul was at at that moment. Not a bloated novel that some seem to prefer. "Mumbo" represents total freedom to me so what a great start. It opens my mind for what follows. I laugh, cry and love to WWL. That's all music needs to do. Count me as another unapologetic lover of Wings Wild Life. I've always loved the rough, dashed off quality. Plus songs like Tomorrow and Dear Friend are DY-NO-MITE, I tell ya! |
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Apr 3, 2013 16:14:41 GMT -5
Don't get me wrong - nobody needs to apologise for loving WWL - or not loving it!
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 3, 2013 17:58:16 GMT -5
Joe, I respond to all of your points. You wait until Rockshow is re-issued. I've studied it from boots and from the McCartney Collection. During The Beatles songs in WOA, the teens all politely applaud and it is only the older college guys with facial hair like 1970's porn stars who go crazy! Once again -- the show is 1976, right? Exactly how "ancient" were The Beatles then? They'd only broken up a mere 6 years earlier. If you were a 17-year-old girl, you don't remember the Beatles? Sorry, I'm not buying it. I also hope you know that just a few camera shots here and there (some of which are not necessarily even reflective of the exact songs they're used for!) don't prove a thing; there were thousands at the shows. You're certainly shuffling around when you're always berating Paul for "selling out" by doing albums like BOTR, SOS, and V&M, -- but then actually CHAMPIONING the sings he does as "new" in 1976! Seems completely hypocritical (sorry for that word, but I couldn't think of another with less sting!) ... That's just crazy. You have to be real -- sure, I'd LOVE to see Paul do what you say. But you and I would be the only ones in the stadium. And if he was to perform all his songs off WILD LIFE, it would be suicide. I hope you remember that I have grown to love WILD LIFE, but it's no surprise to me as to why it was considered 'crap' in its day... and even if it did respectably on the charts at the time, this was undoubtedly because it was still during an era where (as Vectis said) people would buy anything by the ex-Fabs and it would do well. They were still riding the Beatle Wave. |
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Apr 3, 2013 18:29:58 GMT -5
Wings' Wild Life had me at "Take it Tony". I loved it, still do.
Paul could do a "No Beatle Songs" tour. He could make a big deal out of the fact that there will be no Beatle songs. This would draw a different crowd. Paul might have to charge a little less but he would still fill the stands. He'd make the money back with song/cd sells.
|
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Apr 3, 2013 18:53:44 GMT -5
Where is it written that Paul can only play stadiums? Must he gross $1 million each show? Smaller auditoriums, newer music will increase the sense of artistic integrity lacking from his oldies show. I believe he can be a contemporary artist whose new music matters; besides JSD would anyone else agree?
|
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Apr 3, 2013 19:19:27 GMT -5
Where is it written that Paul can only play stadiums? Exactly. Small shows like the Cavern Club one he did or the MTV Unplugged many years ago are far more memorable than another boring-ass stadium greatest-hits show. Paul doesn't need money, so it's not a matter of him having to maximize bums in seats. He doesn't need to play big shows at all. |
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Apr 3, 2013 19:53:48 GMT -5
Isn't this thread a bit of apples vs oranges? Why must one choose? They are different. Who really is going to buy or listen or view one and not the other. Let's compare Woodstock, the Concert for Bangla Desh, Help, The Concert for George, and West Side Story to their respective movies, too, while we're at it.
|
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Apr 3, 2013 20:10:20 GMT -5
Where is it written that Paul can only play stadiums? Must he gross $1 million each show? Smaller auditoriums, newer music will increase the sense of artistic integrity lacking from his oldies show. I believe he can be a contemporary artist whose new music matters; besides JSD would anyone else agree? I think Paul would probably feel like he was on his way out if he quit playing the stadiums. The one off thngs are nice but I think he needs the big crowds. I think he'd quit before he would slave around like Bob Dylan. Given this understanding on my part, my point was he could still draw the crowds. |
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Apr 3, 2013 20:12:25 GMT -5
I'm more exicted about Rock Show. I only have two or three songs from Wings Over America on my Zune. Maybe I'm Amazed, Hi Hi Hi, and Soily.
Actually, I should add, I'm really more excited about any bonus tracks there might be.
|
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Apr 3, 2013 23:03:25 GMT -5
Where is it written that Paul can only play stadiums? Exactly. Small shows like the Cavern Club one he did or the MTV Unplugged many years ago are far more memorable than another boring-ass stadium greatest-hits show. Paul doesn't need money, so it's not a matter of him having to maximize bums in seats. He doesn't need to play big shows at all. I wish like-minded fans would lodge peaceful protests at Paul's concerts, simply trying to get the message to Paul that it is okay for him to focus on new material and deep cut solo tracks! And smaller venues is a brilliant idea! And don't you wish Paul would bring back real horns and for the first time have a real string section! As good as Wix is, the use of a synth for all horn, string and orchestra parts since 1989 gets soooooo cheesy! |
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Apr 4, 2013 12:43:17 GMT -5
Truth is that Paul lives off the cheers of yesteryear and gets downright angry and dejected as the masses flock to the refreshment stands during his later solo ventures. What were the "bathroom and refreshments" songs in 1976? They weren't The Beatles songs, I'd bet. They weren't hits like SILLY LOVE SONGS and BAND ON THE RUN, but I'd bet people drained their lizards during "new songs" like CALL ME BACK AGAIN (which I love), MEDICINE JAR (love too!), and so on. This phenomenon of people wanting to hear the older or more popular or familiar songs is nothing new. You're right -- Paul HAS to do the "oldies" because every time he does another tour, there are first-timers in the audience -- not only 10 year old fans, but even 60 year olds who never got around to seeing him yet. Please understand that personally, I agree. I wouldn't care if Paul did NO MORE BEATLES SONGS in future shows. I would love him to make each and every song some solo album track he's never done live before. When I speak of Paul's great Set Lists of recent decades, that's from the perspective of "seeing paul do these for one show, for a fan's first time". (Not taking into account a half dozen similar times with HEY JUDE and ELEANOR RIGBY over and over). You bring up "obscure WA and PEPPER songs", but there was a time when it was a new thing to see Paul do FIXING A HOLE and GETTING BETTER, or HELTER SKELTER and I WILL. No, he didn't do UNCLE ALBERT, but he did TOO MANY PEOPLE (which is probably more obscure than the #1 Unc) . I was there for that concert tour and the big song to take a bathroom and refreshment break was Spirits Of Ancient Egypt and believe it or not, when they set up for the acoustic set. |
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Apr 4, 2013 12:50:44 GMT -5
Exactly. Small shows like the Cavern Club one he did or the MTV Unplugged many years ago are far more memorable than another boring-ass stadium greatest-hits show. Paul doesn't need money, so it's not a matter of him having to maximize bums in seats. He doesn't need to play big shows at all. I wish like-minded fans would lodge peaceful protests at Paul's concerts, simply trying to get the message to Paul that it is okay for him to focus on new material and deep cut solo tracks! And smaller venues is a brilliant idea! And don't you wish Paul would bring back real horns and for the first time have a real string section! As good as Wix is, the use of a synth for all horn, string and orchestra parts since 1989 gets soooooo cheesy! Before Paul's voice changes to a noticeable degree, Paul has to do a full concert with the London Symphony Orchestra and do songs like Martha My Dear, Golden Slumbers, She's Leaving Home, Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey, The Back Seat of My Car, Warm and Beautiful, Penny Lane, Somedays, Beautiful Night, When I'm 64, A Day in the Life and even, as a tribute to John, Strawberry Fields Forever amonng many others. I agree with getting rid of the cheezy synth and getting real horns and strings. |
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Apr 4, 2013 14:25:06 GMT -5
I wish like-minded fans would lodge peaceful protests at Paul's concerts, simply trying to get the message to Paul that it is okay for him to focus on new material and deep cut solo tracks! And smaller venues is a brilliant idea! And don't you wish Paul would bring back real horns and for the first time have a real string section! As good as Wix is, the use of a synth for all horn, string and orchestra parts since 1989 gets soooooo cheesy! Before Paul's voice changes to a noticeable degree, Paul has to do a full concert with the London Symphony Orchestra and do songs like Martha My Dear, Golden Slumbers, She's Leaving Home, Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey, The Back Seat of My Car, Warm and Beautiful, Penny Lane, Somedays, Beautiful Night, When I'm 64, A Day in the Life and even, as a tribute to John, Strawberry Fields Forever amonng many others. I agree with getting rid of the cheezy synth and getting real horns and strings. That would be wonderful RTP! "Dear Friend" from WWL would greatly benefit from that, the audience would go nuts thinking they were hearing a new McCartney classic! Folks, sadly it is about money! Paul plays the biggest stadiums and uses Wix because he makes a ton more and only pays Wix and not a larger group of musicians. But RTP your idea of Paul using the LSO would lead to the greatest Rock Concert of all time. That would so enhance that music! |
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 5, 2013 5:56:02 GMT -5
So JSD -- did a 17 year-old girl in 1976 know who the Beatles had been, or not?
|
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Apr 5, 2013 8:32:12 GMT -5
So JSD -- did a 17 year-old girl in 1976 know who the Beatles had been, or not? A 17 year old kind of knew but I guarantee for the vast majority of girls in 1976 The Beatles weren't their favorite group and sure as hell wasn't on their minds like us freaks here. Hey, I was 14 in 1976 and a lot of older boys wanted to kick my ass for talking about the Beatles on the school bus! "The Beatles are oldies!" was something I heard every day from Sept 1975 on. Like in the song "A Boy Named Sue, I got pretty tough from defending my love of The Beatles in school busses and hallways of suburbia America! The boys who loved Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin were the most violent anti-Beatles because they smoked too much dope and were too stupid to realize that both bands loved The Beatles! They didn't read the interviews of those bands, they just sat in their bedrooms, smoked dope, played the records and didn't realize the connection! As a Beatles fanatic in 1976 I was in the minority and being a Beatles fanatic in 2013 I am still in a minority. Those 17 year old girls wanted to hear what was on Top 40 radio in 1976 and that was a lot of Paul McCartney & Wings from BOTR to SOS. So yeah, Lady Madonna in 1976 was a drag to them! |
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Apr 5, 2013 11:11:34 GMT -5
I wish like-minded fans would lodge peaceful protests at Paul's concerts, simply trying to get the message to Paul that it is okay for him to focus on new material and deep cut solo tracks! And smaller venues is a brilliant idea! And don't you wish Paul would bring back real horns and for the first time have a real string section! As good as Wix is, the use of a synth for all horn, string and orchestra parts since 1989 gets soooooo cheesy! Before Paul's voice changes to a noticeable degree, Paul has to do a full concert with the London Symphony Orchestra and do songs like Martha My Dear, Golden Slumbers, She's Leaving Home, Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey, The Back Seat of My Car, Warm and Beautiful, Penny Lane, Somedays, Beautiful Night, When I'm 64, A Day in the Life and even, as a tribute to John, Strawberry Fields Forever amonng many others. I agree with getting rid of the cheezy synth and getting real horns and strings. Most people would argue it has reached a noticible degree, but I agree 100% that a concert with a full orchestra in from of a small theater crowd would make for a pretty cool DVD. |
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Apr 5, 2013 18:38:05 GMT -5
Rumor is, it's one of the other, not both.
You'll get Wings Over the World with the deluxe edition.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachbk on Apr 5, 2013 20:53:35 GMT -5
Let's keep a little perspective, gentleman. The public did not boycott Wild Life. Wild Life was a big hit. It brushed the top 10 in the US and UK and went gold (selling a million copies) in America. It hit #3 Down Under and #5 in Canada. Hardly a flop. Maybe not for the average artist, but consider that the two albums preceding WILD LIFE (MCCARTNEY and RAM) both hit #1 in the US as did the followup (RED ROSE SPEEDWAY). Maybe not a "flop" but certainly a weak seller by McCartney's standards. Furthermore it did even worse with the critics. Of course in some respects the wretched reviews meant that once I bought the album (sometime in the late 70's) and found out it wasn't nearly as bad as the reviews it may have helped me like it more. (But before you think I have embraced the "JSD Postulate", I still think WILD LIFE is a bit "half-assed" and is only an avearge 2/3 album (or double EP) at best. |
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Apr 5, 2013 21:09:15 GMT -5
. . . And smaller venues is a brilliant idea! Yeah, it's not like he is afraid or has no confidence in doing them. He played Amoeba Records, the Roundhouse, the Apollo, the Cavern. So, he could do a smaller theater tour and film it for HBO or pay per view to let more people experience it. I've mentioned this before, but there was one Stones tour where they did three shows in each stop: 1 stadium show, 1 arena show, and 1 theater show. Each venue had different songs, except for a handful of similar songs. A song like "Start Me Up" would be a stadium song, while a song like "Sister Morphine" would be a theater song, for example. In the last 4 Dylan tours, I saw him at the Forum (18,000), a minor league ball park (8,000), the Hollywood Palladium (4000), and the Hollywood Bowl (20,000). Paul has to know that if he were to play a 4000 seat show, no one there would be disappointed in an obscure set, unless of course it was filled with Loop, the First Indian on the Moon or Angry or Girlfriend or Move Over Busker and so on. |
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Apr 5, 2013 21:26:01 GMT -5
Maybe not for the average artist, but consider that the two albums preceding WILD LIFE (MCCARTNEY and RAM) both hit #1 in the US as did the followup (RED ROSE SPEEDWAY). Maybe not a "flop" but certainly a weak seller by McCartney's standards. Actually, for an average artist, Wild Life would be considered a blockbuster hit. (To get picky, Ram actually peaked at #2 in the US.) I think you're sort of missing the point, though -- to me, it appears clear that Paul and his pot-combo DID NOT SET OUT TO A MAKE BIG HIT in late 1971, and I think that is admirable. He probably didn't set out to make a big hit with McCartney, either -- that was more of an ego and self-therapy album -- but coming out at the end of the Beatle-era, it was bound to sell big in its first weeks available. Ram and Red Rose Speedway are more obviously studio-laboured LPs designed to hit the mainstream and sell. Even at its roughest, Paul's music tends to be very melodic and smooth at the surface, which is probably why I greatly prefer it in a rough-hewn, earthy framework. I'd take Wild Life over Red Rose Speedway any day, and I'd also take it over Ram or Band on the Run most days (but not all!). |
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Apr 5, 2013 21:26:20 GMT -5
Yeah, it's not like he is afraid or has no confidence in doing them. He played Amoeba Records, the Roundhouse, the Apollo, the Cavern. So, he could do a smaller theater tour and film it for HBO or pay per view to let more people experience it. I've mentioned this before, but there was one Stones tour where they did three shows in each stop: 1 stadium show, 1 arena show, and 1 theater show. Each venue had different songs, except for a handful of similar songs. A song like "Start Me Up" would be a stadium song, while a song like "Sister Morphine" would be a theater song, for example. In the last 4 Dylan tours, I saw him at the Forum (18,000), a minor league ball park (8,000), the Hollywood Palladium (4000), and the Hollywood Bowl (20,000). Paul has to know that if he were to play a 4000 seat show, no one there would be disappointed in an obscure set, unless of course it was filled with Loop, the First Indian on the Moon or Angry or Girlfriend or Move Over Busker and so on. Sayne, if I was in a 4,000 seat theater with Paul I would cherish Loop, First Indian and those others you list! The Stones thing is a great idea for Paul. The small shows limited to those of us who got reamed hard for paying "premier Membership" to PaulMcCartney.com and then Paul does away with it before our year was up! I want front row for that baby!!  |
|
