Eric Stewart's fall out with Paul McCartney

If everyone, including me, who's posted to this thread bought a copy of the PRESS TO PLAY album it'd be pushed to the front of the Paul McCartney Archives' upcoming-release card pronto.

BTW, PRESS TO PLAY 's available digitally at all the usual spots; All physical media editions are currently out of print. That'd probably change, too.

If someone here actually does download any or all of PRESS TO PLAY digitally and legally, I'd be very interested in knowing whether or not this version is noticeably remastered i.e., whether or not it has indeed been remastered at all. Hear Music traditionally lists Paul's catalog releases as having been remastered ... but his catalog's already been done twice. Any info would be appreciated.

 

I think you're being a bit hard on this Forum. In ANY given population there will be a Bell Curve of reactions: some will think most of his work is rubbish, some will think most of it is genius and many will sit somewhere in the middle. Get a big enough population of people (and take into account that people only tend to get involved in online chat when they have opinions) and its easy to see how the perception of the number of fanboys can be exaggerated.

I, myself, find the vast majority of the discussion here to be far more level-headed than most of the chat over at, say, paulmccartney.com.

 

Most of the people here who frequently take part in Macca-discussons don t belong to the category you mention that think Macca can do no wrong. Thats the reason it might not be considered accurate to make general statements concerning those of us who take a particular interest in the music of McCartney. Imo.

 

I think you're being a bit hard on this Forum. In ANY given population there will be a Bell Curve of reactions: some will think most of his work is rubbish, some will think most of it is genius and many will sit somewhere in the middle. Get a big enough population of people (and take into account that people only tend to get involved in online chat when they have opinions) and its easy to see how the perception of the number of fanboys can be exaggerated.

 

Most of the people here who frequently take part in Macca-discussons don t belong to the category you mention that think Macca can do no wrong. Thats the reason it might not be considered accurare to make general statements concerning those of us who take a particular interest in the music of Mc

 

Most of the people here who frequently take part in Macca-discussons don t belong to the category you mention that think Macca can do no wrong. Thats the reason it might not be considered accurare to make general statements concerning those of us who take a particular interest in the music of Mc

 

Most of the people here who frequently take part in Macca-discussons don t belong to the category you mention that think Macca can do no wrong. Thats the reason it might not be considered accurare to make general statements concerning those of us who take a particular interest in the music of Mc

 

Most of the people here who frequently take part in Macca-discussons don t belong to the category you mention that think Macca can do no wrong. Thats the reason it might not be considered accurare to make general statements concerning those of us who take a particular interest in the music of McCartney

 

I am sorry for the multitude of the same message above-something went wrong

 

Ohnothimagen, I'm more of a reader than poster so I've read enough to understand full well what you're saying.
The "Paul can do no wrong crew" do give all of us a bad name.
Me, I know Paul's released some garbage in his time (as have John, George and Ringo) and I call a club a club when warranted.

The gist of what Seederman said certainly has some validity. I know that.
But where Seederman "misspoke" was entirely WRONG.

I, for one, would prefer not to be painted with such broad strokes.
I'm a big fan of qualifiers as opposed to this type of blanket statement.

Whereas your use of the word "some" in your quote meets all my needs.

 

I haven't been here even a year but I can tell you I have read enough to know there are people here among those who like McCartney music who like Kisses on the bottom and others who don't, there are those who like New and those who don't but some of those do like Electric Arguments, there are some who like Chaos & Creation but don't like Ram and some who love Ram and don't like Press to Play and some who love Driving Rain but the vast majority don't and some who love Wild Life but quite a few that think it is weak and BTTE has its advocates some of whom also like the aforementioned and many of whom don't - are you picking up a pattern here? Yep the vast majority of fans don't like the entire catalogue but like and dislike different things, leaving every album with both supporters and detractors amongst people you would broadly call McCartney music fans and own a few albums.

No disrespect but I tend to find when people generalise or feel there are too many fans of a given artist or band here, really what you are saying is too many people don't think as you do and when you did level a negative critique too many people disagreed with you and thought you were off base but the trouble is their views are as genuinely held and valid as yours.

You can lump them"all" in together and try to talk down to them for having the cheek to see things differently to you but it is not a persuasive argument.

 

Ecactley the way I feel

 

Just to chime in here: I recall some critic or other (or was it Malcolm MacDowell himself?) speaking about a misunderstanding between Stanley Kubrick and the star of A Clockwork Orange. The critic (or MacDowell, as it may have been) was saying that while making a movie you work very intensely together for a period of time, a year or whatever, and then you each move on to other projects. The critic/McDowell said that after the completion of Clockwork Orange, the young actor hadn't really known that this was the standard operating procedure in film-making culture: after the closeness of that project, he thought that he and Kubrick were, you know, friends, and when Kubrick moved on to his next project with another set of professional collaborators, the young star took it hard, feeling like he'd been dropped. Which he had been. But the drop had been structural, not quite personal: Kubrick probably thought of MacDowell as highly as ever, but Kubrick now had other things to do, another project with other collaborators to explore, that's all.

Anyway, I can well imagine that the professional culture at the high end of the music business has some of that same dynamic. People have professional relationships that have personal aspects to them (sharing experiences, sharing some confidences), but that the larger structure of the relation remains professional and this sometimes leads to some misunderstandings and sometimes to some hurt feelings especially from the minor party, who thought they were, you know, friends with Mr Big or Ms Big, in a sense that would transcend the project.

PS: Godley also did the video for C'mon People, I think. There's an interview of him speaking about it somewhere I saw recently. Probably on youtube.

 

I think the frustration lies with having legitimate criticisms concerning an artist or their work and having some contend that either the artist is incapable of producing inferior work or said artist does not react in situations as a regular person: being sensitive to criticism, losing their temper, or making a rude or hateful comment.

We all have our musical heroes and love their work, for some people I guess it's difficult to deal with criticism of their work or behavior.

 

It just seems that way. You must be another hypersensitive Macca fan. I can tell.

 

Seriously not with Linda. But they would need another guitarist

 

I bought the album at Rhino in LA when it came out. If my memory is right, it was the first Beatle-related record I bought new as a CD, which was exciting.

Listened to it a lot and developed a sort of soft spot for it, but I don't think I ever thought it was a very good (much less great) record. That said, I can't blame Padgham at all. No matter who is in the producer's chair, McCartney's always in charge - we're heard this over and over through the years and from lots of other people. And the idea that Padgham wouldn't have been giving his all is, I think, I little ridiculous. He's a professional and there's no way he worked for a full year (!), with Paul McCartney, phoning it in.

Simply put, I think the songs just aren't very good and McCartney was chasing something - in terms of relevance and popularity - that was out of his reach by that point.

 

I actually like most of the album, but many of the earlier mixes or single versions are superior in my opinion to the album versions. I imagine that this is because of the poor communication between the artist and the producer.

I personally think that it was wrong of Hugh to take on the job if he didn't like the songs as far back as the stage where he was sent the acoustic demos, let alone later on, when he felt too afraid to tell Paul how he felt.

Still, it is not like I am saying that he did a dreadful job, I just think that it was dishonest of him to not let Paul know that he disliked the songs that they were working on.

Paul was in charge of the sessions, but at the same time, I imagine that he was quite bewildered at the fact that Padgham didn't live up to the reputation that he had, and that he basically sat back in the producer's chair rather than take a more active role. He wasn't 'phoning it in', but he also wasn't doing what he normally would.

There is no point in him criticising Paul now, when he didn't have the guts too at the time. If he didn't feel that the product was good enough, then he shouldn't have put his name to it.

 

Nope!

But you're still trolling for conflict I see.

 

Yeah, really. Awful.

 

That is one of the most interesting things about music IMO; what you call awful, I consider to be a beautiful and delicate ballad, with a lovely melody.

 

Highlighted part of post would apply to any "my favorite artist can do no wrong" fan.

Beatles related post of the year (so far).......

 

Intrigued by this discussion about what is clearly a remarkably polarizing song, I'm going to listen it right now, for the first time.

I'll report back in a few minutes.

 

Fair enough. You and I have different definitions of 'awful'.

 

I'm afraid the song may have killed him. It may need a warning label......