|
Post by Kapitan on Oct 31, 2021 10:55:46 GMT
I agree with you, but I also think those are the only two realistic options for the situation they were in: they weren't scheduling writing sessions, but recording. So the realistic choices are one of the two people learns a mostly finished song of the other's, or you jam and shape it into a song. Turns out they did one of each.
In my research for this, it is definitely true that "Ebony and Ivory" was done well before the session. Paul said different things, but it might date back to 1976 or so, or maybe just the year before the sessions. But he shared it with Wonder in advance. The offer was to come and perform on that song.
Maybe the most opposite--the most like what you're suggesting, lonelysummer--is the late '80s collaboration with Elvis Costello. The two got together and truly wrote together, doing 12 songs. They didn't even really release them in that "famous guests" fashion, but just each released some on various of his own albums. But that just takes a lot more time than what Wonder and McCartney had set aside.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Oct 31, 2021 11:24:52 GMT
Regarding the timing of the Wings breakup, last night for the first time I watched the doc Wingspan. (I realize those bigger fans among you have no doubt long-since seen it, but remember I mostly avoided Wings before this.)
I thought Paul was papering over the end of the band, whether being dishonest or just not wanting to divert focus from Linda or something (since the whole program was obviously a Linda feature). It seems to me, he presented it in the doc as simply the band having taken its course by Back to the Egg, having no energy for it anymore, and having accomplished what they had set out to do.
He goes on to say maybe the marijuana arrest in January 1980 in Japan was subconsciously intentional, to put a stop to it once and for all.
But the timeline doesn't match that. I couldn't say he and Linda didn't feel that way back in 1979-80, but he didn't act that way. Yes, he returned from that blunder and released a solo album in late spring 1980, but it was a solo album he'd recorded nearly a year earlier by that point. They went on to rehearse Wings a few times, both in summer and fall '80. And then he began recording (with Denny Laine). The breakup wasn't official--and seemingly unlike the Beatles' breakup, which had happened well before the announcement and was known by all involved--until April '81. Wings had just been in the studio in February. He doesn't mention Tug of War at all in the story of the breakup.
So my point is, it seemed Paul was wrapping it up in a neat little bow using some major milestones like release of Back to the Egg and the arrest to tell the story, but seems to be wrapping up two years' worth of events as one thing, and moving the formal breakup up a year or so. I do wonder how much of that was innocent but intentional for storytelling purposes, how much was just fuzzy memories, and how much was perhaps a bit self-serving in its omissions.
|
|
|
Post by lonelysummer on Oct 31, 2021 20:39:22 GMT
Regarding the timing of the Wings breakup, last night for the first time I watched the doc Wingspan. (I realize those bigger fans among you have no doubt long-since seen it, but remember I mostly avoided Wings before this.)
I thought Paul was papering over the end of the band, whether being dishonest or just not wanting to divert focus from Linda or something (since the whole program was obviously a Linda feature). It seems to me, he presented it in the doc as simply the band having taken its course by Back to the Egg, having no energy for it anymore, and having accomplished what they had set out to do.
He goes on to say maybe the marijuana arrest in January 1980 in Japan was subconsciously intentional, to put a stop to it once and for all.
But the timeline doesn't match that. I couldn't say he and Linda didn't feel that way back in 1979-80, but he didn't act that way. Yes, he returned from that blunder and released a solo album in late spring 1980, but it was a solo album he'd recorded nearly a year earlier by that point. They went on to rehearse Wings a few times, both in summer and fall '80. And then he began recording (with Denny Laine). The breakup wasn't official--and seemingly unlike the Beatles' breakup, which had happened well before the announcement and was known by all involved--until April '81. Wings had just been in the studio in February. He doesn't mention Tug of War at all in the story of the breakup.
So my point is, it seemed Paul was wrapping it up in a neat little bow using some major milestones like release of Back to the Egg and the arrest to tell the story, but seems to be wrapping up two years' worth of events as one thing, and moving the formal breakup up a year or so. I do wonder how much of that was innocent but intentional for storytelling purposes, how much was just fuzzy memories, and how much was perhaps a bit self-serving in its omissions.
Wingspan is pretty flimsy when it comes to the actual facts surrounding the band. No input at all from the other band members; it's really a glorified love letter to Linda, wrapped in the story of the band. Details surrounding the breakup have always been kind of fuzzy. Denny has said that he left because of the bust in Japan; but then he's there with the band in the summer of '80, rehearsing new songs. Other times, he's said what caused him to leave was because he wasn't allowed to bring his wife JoJo to Monserrat in 1981 while they were recording Tug of War. I think Linda was jealous of JoJo because she was younger and prettier. So Denny left to try and save his marriage. Laurence Juber has said that Paul's songwriting style was changing, and less appropriate for a band. Make of that what you will. It's true that Tug of War is much softer than Back to the Egg, but London Town was a very mellow album, too. I don't disagree with the story that George Martin wanted it to be a solo album. He probably didn't have much interest in producing a band at that point; if he was gonna work with Paul again, he wanted to be able to call the shots and not have to worry about hurting someone's feelings.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Nov 1, 2021 13:10:22 GMT
I'm going to give Tug of War an eight. I think it stands as perhaps Paul's best solo album.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Nov 1, 2021 13:14:52 GMT
Wingspan is ... really a glorified love letter to Linda, wrapped in the story of the band. That's a very good way to put it.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Nov 1, 2021 13:19:02 GMT
I'm listening to Tug of War again this morning.
And, while I really like Here Today, I actually prefer the solo acoustic version that Paul's been doing in concert for the last 20 years or so. Something about the stripped down arrangement without the strings makes the song a little more poignant IMO. The song still seems to mean a lot to Paul. Last time I saw him in person, in 2009, he got noticeably choked up while singing it.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Nov 2, 2021 14:52:55 GMT
I am voting 8.
This isn't a classic album, but it's a really good album. One of Paul's best, taking into account his solo career and Wings output. And while it shows off his musical range, I don't think it feels schizophrenic. I added approximate ratings per song, but don't take them too seriously. They average in the low 7s, but I don't think every song on an album has equal weight in coming up with a rating. If an album is generally strong throughout--as this is--I think the lower-rated songs don't drag it down unless they're really bad or are especially prominent, e.g. leadoff tracks.
“Tug of War” (7) - I like the vocal-and-acoustic guitar opening supplemented by harmonies and relatively subtle synths as the song builds. I could do without the sounds effects at the beginning. (I can do without sound effects far more often than not.) I don’t like as much once the drums kick in—with the exception of the “dancing to the beat” part—but it’s still a nice song. I also don’t like an opening song that is both down-tempo and this long: I feel like it gets you off on the wrong foot. “Take It Away” (8) - Seems like this was one of the more confounding tunes to contemporaneous listeners. I heard one interviewer say he couldn’t make out the point of it, and a few others seem almost apologetic about it being “pure pop.” It’s one of my favorite songs on the album (and what the hell is wrong with “pure pop,” whatever that means?). The B-section have such great background vocals! I also just like the change-up of the rhythm from the reggae style opening to more straight-ahead beats at different sections. “Someone Who Cares” (6) - I like the classical guitar and electric bass interplay at the beginning between McCartney and Stanley Clarke. It’s a beautiful song, too, the kind of thing McCartney has such a gift for. The section “if you don’t know it” is also really interesting between the minor shift and insertion of a few measures in 3 amidst what has been in 4 otherwise. It’s not among my top songs on the album, but it’s a really good one. “What’s That You’re Doing” (6) — Seems this is the board’s least favorite song. I don’t know for sure what to make of it. It feels more like a jam than a song, and like McCartney guesting on a Stevie Wonder song, but it’s well done. And if it sticks out somewhat stylistically, it’s not as if it’s entirely foreign to, say, “Dress Me Up as a Robber.” If that’s got a disco side, this is just a funkier track. I think if it were 3-4 minutes instead of 6:22, it wouldn’t stand out awkwardly. “Here Today” (7) - I wish I liked this more. I do think it’s a very pretty song, but I do not think it’s a top-tier McCartney ballad. And of course, one would hope for his best ballad ever in memoriam of John Lennon. The string arrangement is really nice, though I’d like the song with or without it. “Ballroom Dancing” (8) - Love it. It’s not a great song, and it’s certainly not some deep message. Good. Paul isn’t a flashily deep thinker, so I’m happier when he just does what he does best. This could have been a Beatles song. The brass and wind arrangement is fabulous. And when he sing-screams “ballroom dancing” almost a minute and a half in, my gosh, you remember who this is: this is Paul McCartney. “The Pound is Sinking” (8) - I really like this, too. It’s another one I could imagine as a Beatles song, not that that’s a measure of quality inherently, but just meaning I could imagine them recording it. This reminds me of Queen, with the cartoonish singing in the verses. (Paul is of course no stranger to that: he does a lot of imitating, whether it’s a southern American, a black American, a posh Brit, or something else.) Those background vocals that B.E. pointed out already are spectacular. “Wanderlust” (9) - One of the highlights of the album. Great horn arrangement. Great vocal. So open, expansive, and forward-looking. It feels inherently optimistic musically, to say nothing of the lyrics. Big fan of the countermelodies in the vocals, just wish they’d been by different vocalists: Denny Laine (who was on bass on the track) or someone … in a perfect world, George and John. “Get It” (7) - Somehow both entirely inconsequential and great. “Dress Me Up as a Robber” (8)— Another one like “The Pound is Sinking” or “Ballroom Dancing” or even “Take It Away” that’s kind of stupid but great. Talk about a rhythm. And how about that lead vocal? It’s perfect. I also assume the guitar solo is McCartney, based on wiki’s description of each track’s contributions. I’m almost surprised the bass wasn’t handed over to Clarke on this one, not that Paul fumbled it by any means. I can just easily imagine Clarke putting it over the top. “Ebony and Ivory” (6) - Tough for me to really comment on. I’ve heard it so, so many times. It isn’t a favorite. It is schmaltzy even by McCartney standards. I don’t really like the dramatic, prominent synth. But the vocals are top notch, and it was a huge hit.
|
|
|
Post by lonelysummer on Nov 3, 2021 3:35:05 GMT
Kapitan, I'll tell you what's wrong with "pure pop" - NOTHING! But if you spent a good chunk of your adult life around guys who think the only manly music is hard pounding rock, well, it's like admitting you're a "wussy boy" to like anything pretty or melodic. I'll gladly admit to being a wuss! I like melodies, and pretty sounds. Not all the time, 24/7, sometimes I just gotta boogie!
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Nov 3, 2021 11:18:38 GMT
Kapitan, I'll tell you what's wrong with "pure pop" - NOTHING! But if you spent a good chunk of your adult life around guys who think the only manly music is hard pounding rock, well, it's like admitting you're a "wussy boy" to like anything pretty or melodic. I'll gladly admit to being a wuss! I like melodies, and pretty sounds. Not all the time, 24/7, sometimes I just gotta boogie! Yes, I guess if you'd asked me when I was 14, I would have been of that "rock" mindset. But that attitude is pretty childish. I mean, if a person prefers harder fare, fine. But let's not pretend the problem is with the (non-hard rock) music itself, as opposed to with the listener.
The other angle, I think, is that "pure pop" probably tends even more to be lyrically superficial. Not always, but often. (And that is definitely a criticism people have of McCartney.) But that doesn't bother me, either. I prefer decent superficial lyrics to bad attempts at meaningful ones--which usually end up more embarrassing than the simple "moon in June" ones.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Nov 3, 2021 11:19:10 GMT
Today is the final day for voting on Tug of War. Please be sure to get your vote in, if you haven't. Tomorrow we proceed.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Nov 3, 2021 12:59:45 GMT
Kapitan, I'll tell you what's wrong with "pure pop" - NOTHING! But if you spent a good chunk of your adult life around guys who think the only manly music is hard pounding rock, well, it's like admitting you're a "wussy boy" to like anything pretty or melodic. I'll gladly admit to being a wuss! I like melodies, and pretty sounds. Not all the time, 24/7, sometimes I just gotta boogie! It doesn't help that "pure pop" has become such a dumpster fire in the last 15-20 years. So, now, the word "pop" is almost an insult (I've been guilty a couple times of using it that way myself).
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Nov 4, 2021 11:13:20 GMT
Six voters rated Paul McCartney's Tug of War an average of 7.8.
Thank you for participating. We will move on presently.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Nov 4, 2021 11:14:51 GMT
George Harrison, Gone Troppo (1982)George Harrison clearly experienced less chart success as the ‘70s wore on and turned over into the ‘80s. He still had his share of hit singles and albums, but nothing massive along the lines of his early solo career. He reportedly also became disillusioned with the music industry of the era—more on that later. Harrison spent much of his time and energy on other things. He produced films. He followed car racing. And—after all these years of writing, recording, touring, writing recording, touring, ad infinitum—he took time off. Before the release of his 1982 album Gone Troppo, Harrison had vacationed in Australia and Hawaii. Of course, he did make music as well, at least for the time being. Harrison was coming off his first solo album to fail to be certified as gold, Somewhere In England, and owed one more album on his recording contract. Harrison again worked with Ray Cooper—the two of them performed more than a dozen instruments (including vocals) between them—in summer 1982 at George’s home studio. Nearly 20 musicians contributed to the proceedings, ranging from old hats like Jim Keltner and Billy Preston to Harrison’s mid-70s colleagues like Willie Weeks, to Deep Purple/Whitesnake organist Jon Lord and future Freddie Mercury collaborator Mike Moran. The album was released November 5, 1982, with its first single, “Wake Up My Love,” coming out three days later. Two more singles followed over the next three months. However, Harrison refused to promote the album. He did not make videos, tour, or do much press, leaving the label to do what it wanted. Critics generally found the album slight, a bit of a lightweight—but what exactly that meant was open to interpretation. Rolling Stone called Harrison “a much better movie financier than musician” at that time, but Billboard said "Harrison's sunny lyricism shines brightest when least encumbered by self-consciousness, and here that equation yields a breezy, deceptively eclectic charmer.” Contemporary critics looking back were similarly split, with Mojo and AllMusic basically calling it a throwaway contract album--Harrison's refusal to promote the album certainly would tip the scale that direction somewhat--but Goldmine and Uncut seeing it as pleasant enough. None of the album’s singles "Wake Up My Love," the first single, hit #53 in the US; none of the other singles charted anywhere in the world. The album did not chart in the UK and peaked at #108 in the US. He would not release another album for five years. Please listen to, discuss, and rate George Harrison’s Gone Troppowww.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_mW_bd4-baqgI6x8a814fWtkohlN5zgMXY
|
|
|
Post by kds on Nov 4, 2021 12:18:17 GMT
I recall, I believe at some point in the early 00s, seeing Gone Troppo topping a list of worst ever releases by a Beatle. Granted, this was prior to the McCartney 21st Century albums. But, I can only assume those list makers never listened to Wild Life, Some Time in NYC, most Ringo albums, or even Extra Texture.
It's a lightweight album, no doubt, but that's how George was trending for a little bit. Although, this album even dips into Buffett territory on the title track (which could explain some of the disdain for this album, as Buffett is definitely quite polarizing).
As usual, I'm struggling with a number, so I'll give it a couple more listens.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Nov 4, 2021 12:52:19 GMT
I had never heard this album before yesterday, but knew its reputation along the lines of what you mentioned: terrible album, the nadir, a failure so thorough that it sent him into semi-retirement.
After one listen, I'd agree it's not very good, but it's certainly not so bad, either. There are several Ringo albums, one or two Paul albums, a couple John albums, and a couple Harrison albums I dislike more than this. It's probably not quite middle of the pack, but it's not at, or even especially near (I say without actually looking at them all together) the bottom.
At least it is pleasant, whatever its flaws. Compare that to Some Time In NYC, which grates at the ears. Inconsequential easy listening tops abrasive annoying "serious" every time.
|
|