Good Paulie For A Change
Phil Miller
The other night I bought the new Paul cd "Unplugged",
and I was pleasantly suprised. This is the first thing "the master"
has done since "Mull of Kintyre" that makes me think "wow, this is so
good, only Paul McCartney could have made it".
After a decade or more of trying to recapture the lost
sound of his glory period, Paul sounds like he is really feeling
himself for a change here, and lets the soul of musical rock-n-roll
flow. It's as if he's surrendered to the fact that he can't sing
the perfect "Let It Beees" anymore and that he can't churn out the
top forty tunes. Instead he reverts back to his Elvis imitation
days and has the fun of a youngster whose only true love is music.
On "Unplugged" McCartney shows that he can age into a very
unique musical voice in the coming years. Perhaps now he will allow
his natural talent to mature into a kind of gestalt of pop music
the way Lennon seemed headed before his death. I mean McCartney
has no reason to compete with his past, current pop stars, John Lennon,
media expectations, and worst of all, his own awful "suberban pop"
(e.g. "Big Barn Bed", "Ebony and Ivory", etc) drivel, which he has
been dumping on us over the years.
I also believe Rolling Stone magazine slighted "Unplugged" by
only giving it 3 and 1/2 stars. Heck, 10 years ago thay gave "Tug
of War" 5 stars. It's as if they'd feel too risky seriously
reccomending a Paul McCartney album to its trendy readership. Times
have certainly changed. But so has PM. So if you want to hear a
really good pop/rock cd, take a chance and buy his new cd.
Phil
TB
|>
|> The other night I bought the new Paul cd "Unplugged",
|> and I was pleasantly suprised. This is the first thing "the master"
|> has done since "Mull of Kintyre" that makes me think "wow, this is so
|> good, only Paul McCartney could have made it".
|>
|> only giving it 3 and 1/2 stars.
Probably because Paul didn't write any NEW songs for "Unplugged". They
acknowledged that if he can write new material for his next album
and retain the feel of this album, "no one will be talking about
a 'limited release'"
If Capitol's "limited released" bullshit is to be believed,
I wouldn't have even bothered to REVIEW "Unplugged". Why
review something availble only to a segment of the popluation?
|> Heck, 10 years ago thay gave "Tug
|> of War" 5 stars. It's as if they'd feel too risky seriously
|> reccomending a Paul McCartney album to its trendy readership. Times
|> have certainly changed. But so has PM. So if you want to hear a
|> really good pop/rock cd, take a chance and buy his new cd.
|>
Well, if you check Rolling Stone's review for "Back To The Egg"
you'll find the following comment:
"If this showed up at a record label as a demo cassette, it
would be returned with a brief note saying 'Thanks, but
no thanks'"
I don't think the review was much longer than the above sentence
(maybe a WHOLE paragraph).
I wouldn't pay attention too much to reviews. The 5 star rating
for TUG OF WAR obviously came from a different person than the one who
reviewed BACK TO THE EGG. You can't expect consistent ratings
because they don't have the same person review each new release
by the same artist. One day you get a review by a Macca fan,
the next day you don't. For the record, I agree with the rating
for "Unplugged". When Paulie records an album of new material
this good, I'll give him five stars....