McCartney as a producer of his own works

I've searched the forum but couldnt find any thread with this topic.

Granted, a lot of comments and thoughts were already voiced about Paul McCartney as an arranger and producer here on the forum, but listening to Red Rose Speedway and Venus and Mars (especially), I marveled at his inventive musical choices.

For instance, opening Magneto and Titanium Man with a distorted boogie that precedes the band jumping in and piling up the instruments till the vocal comes, which are initially kind of disconnected with the whole thing. Love In Song is another example of incredible arrangement, opening with piano, keyboard and guitars in unison, setting an eerie mood for a poignant song. He even oddly vocalizes with the keyboard riff further in the song. I feel like he was being very bold, taking risks with such choices, albeit within the limits of a "commercial" artist.

His choice of timbre for the instruments and overall feel of the album, though in point with the 70's era of music, had some character of its own as well (as in the album Ram).

I'm certain much more could be discussed. Anyone wants to jump in?

 

Paul is a great producer of his own work which is something that is overlooked by many. Just one more thing that makes him as great as he is.

Goodnight Tonight, Silly Love Songs, my love are great examples

 

This is a very good idea for a thread; I have always wondered why Paul did not produce for other acts more often, seeing as he is certainly someone with a great skill for arranging, stacking harmonies, building interesting rhythm tracks and tape loops, etc. When he did do it for the likes of Badfinger, Peter and Gordon and Mary Hopkins, he had great success.

I can imagine an alternative 80's where he followed a similar path to the one that Jeff Lynne took, especially had he agreed to produce Squeeze.

 

Paul peaked as a producer and artist with Band on the Run.
He had moments after that of course both as an artist and producer, but his next best album Tug of War was produced by George Martin and his best after that, Flowers in the Dirt, had various individuals assisting.

 

For every good decision he made as a self-producer, there are at least two bad decisions.

He seems to struggle with evaluating the quality his own work (for better and for worse) , and is often guilty of not pushing himself to transform good ideas into great ideas. He sometimes settles for "good enough," especially in the lyrical department. Paul needs someone to tell him "actually Paul, I know you can do better."

It is no coincidence that the vast majority of Paul's best work came under the supervision of a producer.

 

I often wondered about it too; maybe he didnt feel as comfortable to be "just" a producer...he did some work for Mary Hopkins, but I cant recall other collaborations..

 

What if John Lennon had produced a McCartney album and what if Paul had produced a Lennon album?
You think that wouldn't have motivated them?

 

Paul indeed is a great producer. Some fellow producers should learn a bit from him.
On another thread I mentioned that Paul would've been great candidate for producing at least one album for/with John. Sadly that never happened.

D*mn you were faster than me.

 

- I think Back to the Egg is a fantastic production as is Venus and Mars and Speed of Sound...Band is good but I think the sound is muddier on that album then the later ones

 

Also don't confuse producer with songwriter

 

Well, I feel that, with exceptions, Paul's lyrics were aimed at the musical side of things; take "Let 'Em In'', which I love, it doesnt really tell a story, but all those names are there pointing to the melody...its very musical (of course, not very lyrical). And - again, with exceptions - that was always his approach (Hello Goodbye, Helter Skelter, etc.).

 

Just a guess but I think Band On The Run is muddy sounding probably because the majority of it was recorded in Africa and they had issues with the electricity there sometimes which caused the bad sound quality on the tapes.
The actual reason could be something else though.^^

 

Had Paul taken up the job of producing for other acts again later in his career, I can imagine him producing some of the 'Britpop' groups; maybe 'Blur'?

 

Or Coldplay... just what if...

 

I love what I call his 'Dadaist' lyrical approach; the lyrics are often just 'word paintings', designed to match the 'musical colours' of his beautiful melodies.

When he wants to, he can write truly inspired and beautiful lyrics, and his recent albums have been much more considered (maybe due to a certain substance not being smoked anymore or not as often), but that doesn't mean that his 70's lyrics deserve to be dismissed.

 

I think that would be very interesting! Lennon had a very characteristic touch on production too (he deserves a thread like this one too!).

 

I think John produced his music great, too. But some folks here and there are splitting that opinion, so I heard.

 

Paul is a TERRIBLE producer of his own material.

He's long-winded musically and verbose lyrically. He can't find the end of a song if it bit him in the butt. His lyrics can get downright cheesy and awful.

Paul is best when he's surrounded by other people that are as talented as him. George Martin, yes. John Lennon, yes. George Harrison (had to grow into this role a bit, but...), yes. Denny Laine, no way in hell. Elvis Costello, yes.

Paul was, though, the most prepared Beatle when it came to bringing his songs in and knowing what he wanted. I think he knew that if he started to veer into the lane of negative traffic, those other guys would call him on it real fast so he stayed straight and to the point. This is why we don't see Beatle Paul mistakes like Wings Paul or Solo Paul.

Paul needs help, but so did John and so did George. They were all better off working together than on their own. Reference their solo careers and take note of all the misses. Ouch isn't just a Rutles song.

 

I feel Paul is a great producer, especially for other artists. I think there's always a risk when you produce yourself. It's sort of like proofing your own writing.

 

My take on this is that he just took chances; I'm listening to 1984 from Band on The Run now and the synths (?) droning in and out are real cool and a nice touch; this was 1973. I wouldnt say he's terrible, I think hes great, but thats far from perfection.

 

My thoughts, exactly!

 

Or with arranger-- He's undeniably great at that. The production on Venus & Mars is downright eccentric though-- The sound of the thing changes more often than it should. On the opening medley, you have a clear and shimmering acoustic intro, then it's a wall of mud when the band kicks in. "Letting Go" is supposed to be funky, which means the rhythm section shouldn't be buried like it is. And the "old 78" sound on You Gave Me the Answer is kind of grating, vs. the warmth of something like Honey Pie. To me it's the heavy tracks that suffer most-- "Medicine Jar" should sound like a Humble Pie record and doesn't, even though that's exactly how the band is playing.

 

There is nothing wrong with a "musical" approach to lyrics, as long as the lyrics are good. The common problem with Paul's lyrics is that it *sounds* like he settles for the first words or phrases that pop into his head. Instead of viewing these as "placeholders," and further developing these ideas, he views them as complete.

 

I understand your point. In fact, Biker Like An Icon came to my head... and I have to agree with you

 

Exactly, there is nothing "dadaist" or "impressionistic" about this, it's complacency.