McCartney (the album)
Crisstti
listening to anything else. But a few days ago I felt like listening
to something else and listened McCartney. And God, it just seems so
bad!. It was never one of my favourites by him, but I remembered it
as being far better. I was surprised at how it hardly did anything
for me (and I had even takes Kreen Akrore out). It does have Maybe
I'm Amazed, That Would be Something, Junk... and I like Man we was
Lonely and Lovely Linda as well.
I don't know, maybe the lack of production was a shock.
How much do you like it?.
The Walrus was Danny
Well I suppose I quite like it since it's part of my youth....but one
thing I always wondered...why Cherries?
..and isn't it funny the way the front of the cover is in fact the
Cherries whereas whenever anybody even pictures it they use the back
with the pic of Macca and the title.
Danny
Dale Houstman
Immensely. Hell, even you say you like at least 5 of the songs. And I
would add "Every Night" which I think is a perfect little gem of a song.
Myself? I knew when it came out that is wasn't "George Martin" shiny,
but it is - unlike many of Paul's albums - almost totally lacking in
pretentiousness and over-production. It is clunky in parts, but - to my
ears - that only underscores its "home made" quality, which is a big
part of what makes it a charmer, even to this day.
dmh
Dale Houstman
>> I have been for a while in a heavy Michael Jackson fase, hardly
>> listening to anything else. But a few days ago I felt like listening
>> to something else and listened McCartney. And God, it just seems so
>> bad!. It was never one of my favourites by him, but I remembered it
>> as being far better. I was surprised at how it hardly did anything
>> for me (and I had even takes Kreen Akrore out). It does have Maybe
>> I'm Amazed, That Would be Something, Junk... and I like Man we was
>> Lonely and Lovely Linda as well.
>> I don't know, maybe the lack of production was a shock.
>>
>> How much do you like it?.
>
> Well I suppose I quite like it since it's part of my youth....but one
> thing I always wondered...why Cherries?
Why not really? It's a nice picture, composed on the bias, and cherries
are not only delicious and colorful, they possibly hint at a playful
sexuality, or maybe a slight hint of "bowl of cherries" - as if to say
"I'm doing just fine..."
>
> ..and isn't it funny the way the front of the cover is in fact the
> Cherries whereas whenever anybody even pictures it they use the back
> with the pic of Macca and the title.
>
When I think of the album, I envision the cherries.
dmh
richforman
> Crisstti wrote:
> > I have been for a while in a heavy Michael Jackson fase, hardly
> > listening to anything else. But a few days ago I felt like listening
> > to something else and listened McCartney. And God, it just seems so
> > bad!. It was never one of my favourites by him, but I remembered it
> > as being far better. I was surprised at how it hardly did anything
> > for me (and I had even takes Kreen Akrore out). It does have Maybe
> > I'm Amazed, That Would be Something, Junk... and I like Man we was
> > Lonely and Lovely Linda as well.
> > I don't know, maybe the lack of production was a shock.
>
> > How much do you like it?.
>
> Immensely. Hell, even you say you like at least 5 of the songs. And I
> would add "Every Night" which I think is a perfect little gem of a song.
Same here and I just want to remention Junk which I think is a real
winner, an absolute gem of songwriing.
And let's not forget at all Maybe I'm Amazed, which I think a lot of
people would consider Paul's best post-Beatles
song, I would say at least it's a contender.
> Myself? I knew when it came out that is wasn't "George Martin" shiny,
> but it is - unlike many of Paul's albums - almost totally lacking in
> pretentiousness and over-production. It is clunky in parts, but - to my
> ears - that only underscores its "home made" quality, which is a big
> part of what makes it a charmer, even to this day.
>
Genuinely charming is exactly what it is, and really nicely soulful
and rocking in a number of spots.
A terrific album IMO, a sort of unlikely classic that may not have
been intended to be one. So you're wrong Crissti (just kidding).
I'd say Band on the Run is another Macca album that shares with this
one that unassuming, unpretentious quality that Dale mentions, just a
clean, simple pure sound and feel to it that gives it a real likeable,
winning vibe imo.
richforman
from_me...@comcast.net
wrote:
Danny, I've always thought this, and I'm sure that I will be roundly
criticized for it. What is it that's on the front cover?
Bowl of cherries... right?
Now, we Americans have to imagine that it is being said with an
English accent, but you being from "jolly old England" should hear it
right away!
Said with an English accent it sounds like... "Paul Love..."
Now, for the rest, I'm afraid, you will have to use your imagination!
Hari Krishna... Hari Hari,
Robert
from_me...@comcast.net
> On Nov 14, 6:47 pm, Dale Houstman <d...@skypoint.com> wrote:
>
> > Crisstti wrote:
> > > I have been for a while in a heavy Michael Jackson fase, hardly
> > > listening to anything else. But a few days ago I felt like listening
> > > to something else and listened McCartney. And God, it just seems so
> > > bad!. It was never one of my favourites by him, but I remembered it
> > > as being far better. I was surprised at how it hardly did anything
> > > for me (and I had even takes Kreen Akrore out). It does have Maybe
> > > I'm Amazed, That Would be Something, Junk... and I like Man we was
> > > Lonely and Lovely Linda as well.
> > > I don't know, maybe the lack of production was a shock.
>
> > > How much do you like it?.
>
> > Immensely. Hell, even you say you like at least 5 of the songs. And I
> > would add "Every Night" which I think is a perfect little gem of a song.
>
> Same here and I just want to remention Junk which I think is a real
> winner, an absolute gem of songwriing.
> And let's not forget at all Maybe I'm Amazed, which I think a lot of
> people would consider Paul's best post-Beatles
> song, I would say at least it's a contender.
And folks, let's not forget the IMPACT of Paul's quitting The Beatles,
and "taking" these songs for himself, and away from any credit to The
Beatles if he had stayed with the group!
"Teddy Boy", "Junk", "Maybe I'm Amazed". "Every Night", "That Would Be
Something", and "Man We Was Lonely"!
It was surely the proverbial straw...
Crisstti
Yes, I did think of Every Night after I had posted :). Love that song
as well.
Yeah, when writing the post I realized that I like quite a few songs
in it. It's just that when I heard it the other day, I liked it far
less than before...
rwalker
<rfor...@msn.com> wrote:
>On Nov 14, 6:47嚙緘m, Dale Houstman <d...@skypoint.com> wrote:
>> Crisstti wrote:
>> > I have been for a while in a heavy Michael Jackson fase, hardly
>> > listening to anything else. 嚙畿ut a few days ago I felt like listening
>> > to something else and listened McCartney. 嚙璀nd God, it just seems so
>> > bad!. 嚙瘢t was never one of my favourites by him, but I remembered it
>> > as being far better. 嚙瘢 was surprised at how it hardly did anything
>> > for me (and I had even takes Kreen Akrore out). 嚙瘢t does have Maybe
>> > I'm Amazed, That Would be Something, Junk... and I like Man we was
>> > Lonely and Lovely Linda as well.
>> > I don't know, maybe the lack of production was a shock.
>>
>> > How much do you like it?.
>>
>> Immensely. Hell, even you say you like at least 5 of the songs. And I
>> would add "Every Night" which I think is a perfect little gem of a song.
>
>Same here and I just want to remention Junk which I think is a real
>winner, an absolute gem of songwriing.
>And let's not forget at all Maybe I'm Amazed, which I think a lot of
>people would consider Paul's best post-Beatles
>song, I would say at least it's a contender.
>
Snip
I have to agree. One of my favorites.
RichL
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 16:17:56 -0800 (PST), richforman
> <rfor...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>>> Crisstti wrote:
>>>> I have been for a while in a heavy Michael Jackson fase, hardly
>>>> listening to something else and listened McCartney. And God, it
>>>> just seems so bad!. It was never one of my favourites by him, but
>>>> I remembered it as being far better. I was surprised at how it
>>>> hardly did anything for me (and I had even takes Kreen Akrore
>>>> Junk... and I like Man we was Lonely and Lovely Linda as well.
>>>> I don't know, maybe the lack of production was a shock.
>>>
>>>> How much do you like it?.
>>>
>>> Immensely. Hell, even you say you like at least 5 of the songs. And
>>> I would add "Every Night" which I think is a perfect little gem of
>>> a song.
>>
>> Same here and I just want to remention Junk which I think is a real
>> winner, an absolute gem of songwriing.
>> And let's not forget at all Maybe I'm Amazed, which I think a lot of
>> people would consider Paul's best post-Beatles
>> song, I would say at least it's a contender.
>>
>
> Snip
>
> I have to agree. One of my favorites.
Overall, Paul's post-Beatles catalogue doesn't impress me much, but
Maybe I'm Amazed is a definite exception.
Dale Houstman
> On Nov 14, 6:47 pm, Dale Houstman <d...@skypoint.com> wrote:
>> Crisstti wrote:
>>> I have been for a while in a heavy Michael Jackson fase, hardly
>>> listening to anything else. But a few days ago I felt like listening
>>> to something else and listened McCartney. And God, it just seems so
>>> bad!. It was never one of my favourites by him, but I remembered it
>>> as being far better. I was surprised at how it hardly did anything
>>> for me (and I had even takes Kreen Akrore out). It does have Maybe
>>> I'm Amazed, That Would be Something, Junk... and I like Man we was
>>> Lonely and Lovely Linda as well.
>>> I don't know, maybe the lack of production was a shock.
>>> How much do you like it?.
>> Immensely. Hell, even you say you like at least 5 of the songs. And I
>> would add "Every Night" which I think is a perfect little gem of a song.
>
> Same here and I just want to remention Junk which I think is a real
> winner, an absolute gem of songwriing.
> And let's not forget at all Maybe I'm Amazed, which I think a lot of
> people would consider Paul's best post-Beatles
> song, I would say at least it's a contender.
Yep. I didn't mention those because they were mentioned by the original
poster, and I wanted to add another "gem to the tiara". The rest of the
album is filled with half-finished fragments and little sonic
experiments, but they all add to the charm of the "DIY" quality. "Maybe
I'm Amazed" is certainly one of my (and many others) favorite solo
tracks, and "Let Me Roll It" is a contender. But I'm a real McCartney
admirer, so don't trust my opinions. The album RAM still impresses me
(it is somewhere neatly between the "downhome" feel of MCCARTNEY and the
greater and greater over-production of later albums, and actually my
favorite all-around Paul solo album. But that's hardly an original
observation on my part.
dmh
Dale Houstman
I suppose I couldn't like it quite as much as I did when it first came
out: it seemed like a magical object at the time, like the Beatles had
been resurrected for one last go at it. Over the years, I've learned to
hear its technical limitations, and to miss the input of the others
where it really counts, and to realize that quite a bit of the album is
really just parts of songs and chants and excuses for guitar riffs. But
the original "album as magic object" feeling has been replaced with an
appreciation of its charm. And charm is a difficult thing to pull off.
dmh
dahldude
wrote:
>
> Well I suppose I quite like it since it's part of my youth....but one
> thing I always wondered...why Cherries?
>
Going on memory - I didn't scan the net for a proper pic - my guesses
were:
the cherries are not in the bowl, so:
a metaphor for death, as the picture depicts a non bowl of cherries
or
life is not a bowl of cherries
or
life was a bowl of cherries
It's a sly artistic statement, this (along with the double beetle
pic).
The strongly worded "interview" towards John to pull his head out and
make the move toward a reconcilliation (which John balked at) was at
the time of release a perk, as only first releases would include the
extra sheet of double sided typewritten paper. By hiding out, away
from the press again, Paul's interview stunt allowed this to become
"Are the Beatles dead?" continuation of the prior autumn frenzy "Is
Paul dead?"
Songwise, it was better than any other solo album release prior but
proved that even Paul would have a hard time throwing out a solid and
varied set of songs as well as a Beatles LP.
"Kreen Akrore" was a drag. The rest seemed OK.
To ATV's credit, the companion music book kicked ass all over the
Charles Hanson version. Multitrack parts instead of a lame piano -
vocal - guitar. Anyone remember that?
globular
Tired ears?
who?
I played it to death as a kid. Worst track: "The Lovely Linda"
Jeff
The Walrus was Danny
> Bowl of cherries... right?
>
> Now, we Americans have to imagine that it is being said with an
> English accent, but you being from "jolly old England" should hear it
> right away!
>
> Said with an English accent it sounds like... "Paul Love..."
>
> Now, for the rest, I'm afraid, you will have to use your imagination!
Well there is the expression to "Lose one's Cherry"..ie
*virginity*..but I'm not convinced that "Bowl of" sounds like "Paul
Love"!
Danny
Dale Houstman
> Particularly as it was originally recorded. The Wings Over America
> arrangement isn't quite so gutless and "one man band"-sounding.
I prefer the original, and that "one man band" sound. It has a tension
and a feeling of "gothic loneliness" that - to my ears - is very
compelling. As for being "gutless" - I disagree: I like its rolling
severity, the sense of just barely restrained emotion, and its nice
juncture of theme and presentation: the song is sung by a character who
finds it difficult to communicate feelings, the performance sounds
alienated and lost in a chamber echo.
dmh
The Arranger
The consensus in my house as Paul's best post-Beatle song...the other
unanimous choice in that same category is Ringo's "It Don't Come
Easy."
The Arranger
Crisstti
I like your analysis. One of his best songs.
Dale Houstman
Thanks. I should say that I understand PR's preference for the Wings
Over America version, as it's a full band treatment, and - as he says -
a bit less "gutless" (though I don't think of it that way), but I just
happen to think the original track's sound more accurately captures the
emotional tension of the lyric. In some sense, the "better" it is
performed, the less interesting it becomes to me, which is hardly true
of most songs...
dmh
Dale Houstman
> I Understand,
> You Gave Me Loving In The Palm Of My Hand
> I Can't Tell You How I Feel
> My Heart Is Like A Wheel
> Let Me Roll It
> Let Me Roll It To You
> Let Me Roll It
> Let Me Toll It To You
> I Want To Tell You
> And Now's The Time
> I Want To Tell You That
> You're Going To Be Mine
> I Can't Tell You How I Feel
> My Heart Is Like A Wheel.
> Let Me Roll It
> Let Me Roll It To You
> Let Me Roll It
> Let Me Roll It To You
Uh - Are you thinking that by printing the lyrics, it somehow will
reveal to the rest of us (who - strangely - have ears) that it is in
fact rubbish after all? This reminds me of the tactic a rather square
teacher in the first year of Junior College used on a Beatles lyric of
the time: reading it out loud as if we would be fooled into thinking it
was a very inferior poem rather than an exciting song. In other words,
showing us the lyrics (which we already knew anyway) fails utterly as a
rhetorical gesture. Paul - at his best - is not a consummate lyricist,
and since this particular song is being sung by a character who is not
adept at expressing his feelings in words, it hardly diminishes the
song's qualities if the lyrics are not precisely John Donne. Most of the
import is communicated in the tension of the melody and performance and
production. The lyrics are fine as far as I'm concerned, but they could
be worse and it would still be a good song. You don't have to like it -
that's beyond reasonable - but to think you are revealing some great
secret flaw by showing us lyrics we already knew? Not all that astute...
dmh
BLACKPOOLJIMMY
>
> Uh - Are you thinking that by printing the lyrics, it somehow will
> reveal to the rest of us (who - strangely - have ears) that it is in
> fact rubbish after all? This reminds me of the tactic a rather square
> teacher in the first year of Junior College used on a Beatles lyric of
> the time: reading it out loud as if we would be fooled into thinking it
> was a very inferior poem rather than an exciting song.
Sort of like hearing Shatner do "Lucy In The Sky.....
Robert (enterprise)
> Immensely. Hell, even you say you like at least 5 of the songs. And I
> would add "Every Night" which I think is a perfect little gem of a song.
> Myself? I knew when it came out that is wasn't "George Martin" shiny,
> but it is - unlike many of Paul's albums - almost totally lacking in
> pretentiousness and over-production. It is clunky in parts, but - to my
> ears - that only underscores its "home made" quality, which is a big
> part of what makes it a charmer, even to this day.
>
> dmh
Yeah, I love the album too. Had Every Night, Maybe I'm Amazed, or Junk
appeared on a Beatles' album I don't think anyone would have questioned
them being there. That Would Be Something, Oo You, Man We Was Lonely,
Momma Miss America and Teddy Boy are all good too, though perhaps not
quite finished.
richforman
>
Like PR, and like with almost all the songs on Wings Over America, I
think that live version is amazing, just fantastically rock-heavy and
with a stellar lead vocal (I think the whole WOA features the best
vocals of Paul's career or anyone's - all the tracks leave their
studio versions in the dust, McCartney was at his absolute peak
vocally and the band was truly formidable).
But anyway as far as the lyrics, I have always found it interesting
the way it throws back to the extremely simple and simplistic, naive,
Valentine-card lyrics of early-era Beatles songs like "Eight Days a
Week." Leaving aside Dale's more psychologically deep
interpretation which I admit I never really thought about, the lyrics
of "Let Me Roll It" are exactly as simple and corny as those of EDaW -
and like that song, seem to function more as a delivery system for a
fairly catchy and rockin' pop tune, and not much more.
richforman
The Arranger
I don't know how many post-Beatle Paul songs would stand up to such
scrutiny. Certainly not "Band on the Run."
When actually reading pop songs' lyrics, I'm often surprised how
little there is to them...literally. Sometimes a song can be reduced
to ten or fewer lines when omitting repeated lyrics, e,g.:
I may not always love you
But long as there are stars above you
You never need to doubt it
I'll make you so sure about it
God only knows what I'd be without you
If you should ever leave me
Though life would still go on, believe me
The world could show nothing to me
So what good would livin' do me
The Arranger
Dale Houstman
As much as I would enjoy being the Freud/Adler/Jung of the group, my
interpretation isn't "deep" - it's more in the nature of an off-the-cuff
pbservation.
Just to clarify here: I agree with you on "Wings Over America" (I think
the album is a classic of sorts), and have no problem at all with the
live version of "Let Me Roll It" even though I still prefer the more
"rudimentary/primitive" original.
> the lyrics
> of "Let Me Roll It" are exactly as simple and corny as those of EDaW -
> and like that song, seem to function more as a delivery system for a
> fairly catchy and rockin' pop tune, and not much more.
>
I agree and (a little) disagree. I feel toward those lyrics much the
same way I feel towards - say - "Every Night," also a simple lyric, but
I don't see the words as a sort of "delivery system" and "not much more"
- I think - in both cases - the minimalism of the lyrics is a perfect
match to the minimalism of the song: they both "deliver" each other at
the same speed and at the same time, a feat Paul doesn't achieve
consistently. And - to me - they seem heartfelt. I only wish Paul did
more of this sort of writing. "Waterfalls" is another good example in a
way. And I am not sure "Let Me Roll It" rocks so much as - appropriately
- rolls, or lumbers with a bit of slink...
dmh
Bernie Woodham
I think when people talk about how hard it is to write lyrics, it's
because they are trying too hard.
Bernie "Rama Lama Ding Dong" Woodham
Nil
rec.music.beatles:
> And I am not sure "Let Me Roll It" rocks so much as -
> appropriately - rolls, or lumbers with a bit of slink...
It's devilishly fun to play.
BlackMonk
"The Arranger" <recu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5afb8a98-d58b-43fd...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
I'd guess that many, if not most, pop/rock songs though the sixties have
around twenty lines or less. The average probably increased during the
seventies with various movements that had more pretensions to art, but how
many seven minute+ songs say more than "Waterloo Sunset" or "A Day In The
Life."
Dale Houstman
It leaves a lot of room to move about in...
dmh
Jones
The "McCartney" album sleeve-what do you call that kind of a sleeve? A
gatefold? Bad idea, Macca. Revolver didn't open up like that. Revolver!
Seems to me artists used to save the fold open sleeve option for when
they really had something: Deja Vu, Sgt. Pepper etc. He should have gone
the humility route, called the album "sketches", and put it in non
glossy paper. A single b&w pic of him singing into the four track. He
just set himself up for ridicule. This was "McCartney", hushed and
rushed to market, not "After The Gold Rush".
Timothy J
brilton
Nothing wrong with the packaging (or the LP). By your own reasoning,
"The Wedding Album" should have been released in a single sleeve, and
"Electronic Sound" should have been issued in a newsprint sleeve.
iarwain
I'm a big fan of Ram also. I really like the production on that
album, I've always thought it just SOUNDS great. Like it has just the
right amount of layers or something, and the right mix of instruments
that sound good against each other. Some albums just sound good, like
Sgt. Pepper or Dark Side of the Moon, and I've always felt that way
about Ram. I mean, I wouldn't put it on the level of those other
albums, but it is very good.
Crisstti
I've heard more than one person criticze the production
("overproduction") of the album. As far as I'm concerned, it sounds
great.
iarwain
Really? Seems like the "overproduction" on Ram is closer to the
"overproduction" of the Beatles albums than the McCartney album,
that's for sure.
I could see someone not liking Ram, as lyrically it gets a bit fluffy
in spots. But that's McCartney for you, and I've always been more
interested in noises (the music) than lyrics anyway.
The Walrus was Danny
> Nothing wrong with the packaging (or the LP). By your own reasoning,
> "The Wedding Album" should have been released in a single sleeve, and
> "Electronic Sound" should have been issued in a newsprint sleeve.
Ha! By my reasoning both those albums shouldn't have been released at
all!!
Both are completely crap.
Danny
Crisstti
Yes, really. Who knows what their problem is :).
brilton
Thanks for missing my point, and also for your unsolicited opinion.
Anyway, at least the "Amsterdam" side of "Wedding Album" was listenable.
Fattuchus
wrote:
> > I have been for a while in a heavy Michael Jackson fase, hardly
> > listening to anything else. But a few days ago I felt like listening
> > to something else and listened McCartney. And God, it just seems so
> > bad!. It was never one of my favourites by him, but I remembered it
> > as being far better. I was surprised at how it hardly did anything
> > for me (and I had even takes Kreen Akrore out). It does have Maybe
> > I'm Amazed, That Would be Something, Junk... and I like Man we was
> > Lonely and Lovely Linda as well.
> > I don't know, maybe the lack of production was a shock.
>
> > How much do you like it?.
>
> thing I always wondered...why Cherries?
Life is a bowl of cherries?
>
> ..and isn't it funny the way the front of the cover is in fact the
> Cherries whereas whenever anybody even pictures it they use the back
> with the pic of Macca and the title.
>
> Danny
Fattuchus
I think RAM is a pretty good album too (although I don't like the digs
taken at the other Beatles).
IIRC I read in an interview or two that Paul gave RAM a very slick
production to answer criticism that the album McCartney was "under"
produced.
Jeff
What's slick about it? "Uncle Albert"?
The Walrus was Danny
> Thanks for missing my point, and also for your unsolicited opinion.
Your most welcome!
>
> Anyway, at least the "Amsterdam" side of "Wedding Album" was listenable.
Thank you for your unsolicited opinion!!
Danny
Fattuchus
Dear Boy and Uncle Albert both seem very "heavily produced." There's
probably a couple of others I can't think of right now.
who?
Yeah, but the production fits the song with Uncle Albert. I can't
think
of the tune to Dear Boy to comment.