29-12-2016, 04:44
the thing with McCartney is that he was always trying to be a bit experimental on his albums, trying new things, sometimes it worked, other times it didn't...
"McCartney II" is the classic example of that, he just got new equipment for his home studio and was basically trying to get the hang of the new latest and greatest
hardware so he experimented with sounds, loops, effects etc...
the problem with McCartney is no matter how hard he tries to experiment his 'sound' still comes through in the tracks, so it still sounds like McCartney,
the exception being the three Fireman albums which are almost totally electronic (simple but electronic)...
I agree with what you say though, he is/was capable of greater things but I think he had no one to push him to the limit or tell him was he was producing was 'trite',
whereas Lennon/George Martin were there to bounce off and tell him the truth, I mean, seriously, if you were working with McCartney (or any other legend) would you
tell them their ideas were crap?, probably not, because they are the musical legends/geniuses...
George Martin has been involved in several of his solo projects, and each time the sound is perfection, the songs are classy and the overall effort is there to see and hear...
Elvis Costello worked with McCartney on a few tracks in '89-ish, some of which appeared on Macca's "flowers in the dirt" album, others appeared on Costello's "spike" album,
McCartney said at the time, "Elvis and me sat across from eachother with acoustic guitars bouncing ideas backwards and forewards, it was good, just like the old days with John,we were egging eachother onwards and upwards, I realised then how much I missed that way of writing"
also, no one at EMI/Parlaphone said anything about the quality of the albums to Paul, why?, I suspect that they didn't care because when a new album by any artist gets released, sales of old ones generally spike for a few weeks also, so any lack of sales from the new ones would generate ales from old albums that normally wouldn't have been there...
with Lennon, his music was always brutally honest, sure he made some crap also, but he was always honest in his approach to music making...
and even when the songs sounded terrible his lyrics were always first class
and in the original post,
you cannot compare the two,
with had distinctive styles, Lennon the rough and ragged 'in your face' style of songs and McCartney, the composer of 'catchy pop songs' which were always destined
to become hits however simplistic they appeared to be.
comparing Lennon and McCartney to me is like comparing Springsteen to Prince, or Gibb Brothers to Bjork...totally different styles,
"McCartney II" is the classic example of that, he just got new equipment for his home studio and was basically trying to get the hang of the new latest and greatest
hardware so he experimented with sounds, loops, effects etc...
the problem with McCartney is no matter how hard he tries to experiment his 'sound' still comes through in the tracks, so it still sounds like McCartney,
the exception being the three Fireman albums which are almost totally electronic (simple but electronic)...
I agree with what you say though, he is/was capable of greater things but I think he had no one to push him to the limit or tell him was he was producing was 'trite',
whereas Lennon/George Martin were there to bounce off and tell him the truth, I mean, seriously, if you were working with McCartney (or any other legend) would you
tell them their ideas were crap?, probably not, because they are the musical legends/geniuses...
George Martin has been involved in several of his solo projects, and each time the sound is perfection, the songs are classy and the overall effort is there to see and hear...
Elvis Costello worked with McCartney on a few tracks in '89-ish, some of which appeared on Macca's "flowers in the dirt" album, others appeared on Costello's "spike" album,
McCartney said at the time, "Elvis and me sat across from eachother with acoustic guitars bouncing ideas backwards and forewards, it was good, just like the old days with John,we were egging eachother onwards and upwards, I realised then how much I missed that way of writing"
also, no one at EMI/Parlaphone said anything about the quality of the albums to Paul, why?, I suspect that they didn't care because when a new album by any artist gets released, sales of old ones generally spike for a few weeks also, so any lack of sales from the new ones would generate ales from old albums that normally wouldn't have been there...
with Lennon, his music was always brutally honest, sure he made some crap also, but he was always honest in his approach to music making...
and even when the songs sounded terrible his lyrics were always first class
and in the original post,
you cannot compare the two,
with had distinctive styles, Lennon the rough and ragged 'in your face' style of songs and McCartney, the composer of 'catchy pop songs' which were always destined
to become hits however simplistic they appeared to be.
comparing Lennon and McCartney to me is like comparing Springsteen to Prince, or Gibb Brothers to Bjork...totally different styles,
"BTO....Bachman,Turner,Overweight
They were big in the 70s....for five minutes,on a Saturday,after lunch..." - Me 2014.
They were big in the 70s....for five minutes,on a Saturday,after lunch..." - Me 2014.