Hi Brian -- thanks for replying and clarifying. I would strongly disagree that Ram was critically re-evaluated "a few weeks later" after it's initial release and poor reviews. I'm not sure how old you are, but I'm a second-gen fan (born 1968), and as far back as I can remember (mid-late 1970s) Ram was considered a dud and Wild Life a disaster. In my experience, that perception stayed true until the early '90s, when the so-called "Ram Army" -- a small but loud group of Macca superfans -- started pushing back. The 1990s was a great time for Beatlesque/McCartneyesque indie/power pop, and Ram in particular started to get some respect. But I still don't think it was seen more widely as a great (and misunderstood) album until the 2000s -- and specifically the Archive box. Wild Life still has a ways to go before it's considered a great or even good album, but it certainly has its supporters. In the early 1970s, anything released by a solo Beatle was going to chart pretty well, regardless of quality. There were exceptions, of course, but as a rule fans would rush out and buy a new "Beatle" single -- that doesn't mean the reviews were good or even that the fans liked what they bought. "Mary Had A Little Lamb" set Paul solidly on the path of being a pop culture joke, but it was still a Top Ten single. (I think it's quite nice, musically, but I can see how it did him no favors in 1972.) I didn't mean to imply that McCartney and Wild Life had the same ethos -- just that they were similarly under-written and under-produced. You are quite correct, Wild Life was very much Paul's "Get Back Part 2" -- hey, the Beatles didn't love my idea of stripping it down to the basics, so I'll do it myself. The 1972 university tour in particular was something Paul wanted to do with the Fabs -- to which I believe John replied, "You're daft." Well, I happen to prefer Off The Ground to FITD, but let's keep this tangent at least somewhat near topic...
As a second generation fan myself (born near that year), I've never encountered that consideration that Ram was a dud. All of the books I've read recapping Paul's history and catalogue list Ram as a success; it has hits, is good listening, and proved Paul's case about the problems with Beatles royalties (since Linda earned way more than him on it). It usually got 4 or 5 stars in overview catalogues and was a "should get" album along Band On the Run and Speed Of Sound. Keep in mind too that Ram is an album that didn't get bonus tracks in the first wave (a rarity). But the finding of the second review was something that happened in the Internet age, and has been used to defend Ram against those who think Paul didn't do very much good beyond Band On The Run. You're right about Wild Life, though: it's a disaster. It rarely gets above one or two stars, and in one book I read, it was the second-worst of the pop albums to get — the worst being Pipes Of Peace. This I disagree with, especially when it comes to George Harrison. His singles did so well that his greatest hits package was half Beatles. What made "Mary Had A Little Lamb" a decent success isn't just it's a decent pop song. For one thing, it followed the banned "Give Ireland Back To The Irish," which critics saw as a big 'ban be now!' moment from Paul. For a second, it's a great kids song, and there aren't many of them out there. And for a third, Paul plugged it pretty strongly. It was on the Flip Wilson Show (with a promo film!) and was a key part of the set list until 1973. And, finally, I think Paul tied it pretty well to the happy memories of the period. By the same token, "C Moon" is a similarly okay pop song, but it was associated with a banned single ("Hi Hi Hi"), and got a lot of performance (staying in the set list until 1975). I'm torn. Both are decent albums, but Flowers has stronger songs and Off The Ground has less dated production. The one nice thing about Off The Ground is some of the b-sides are astonishingly good!
I would bet that many WILL reassess their opinion about Wild Life once an Archive set is released. Sort of like all he Dylan Self Portrait naysayers now love it as a result of his expanded official Bootleg set. On another issue; if Paul is still competitive like he used to be, I can totally see a series of sets of vinyl boxes, maybe one for each decade or so like Bowies. Especially now since the entire Harrison vinyl box as been released.
I don't know that the Self Portrait box revised people's opinions about the finished Self Portrait album, as much as it demonstrated that Dylan actually had the raw material available to make a good covers album but messed it up. I don't think Paul has a huge backlog of material from the Wild Life sessions that he's sitting on, nor is he likely to provide alternate mixes that present the songs differently.
I won't belabor the point, but the notion that Ram was terrible was long-standing and entrenched until about 20+ years ago. From Nicholas Schaffner's beloved Beatles Forever (1977): Ram remains something of a puzzle to Beatle people. At the time of its May 1971 release it was roundly and harshly condemned by reviewers such as Rolling Stone's Jon Landau, who called it "the nadir in the decomposition of Sixties rock thus far," "incredibly inconsequential," and "monumentally irrelevant." [...] Ram is certainly more varied than McCartney, and boasts some lovely snatches of melody. The problem is that these remain snatches, none of which hang together to make for anything terribly memorable. Rm brings to mind a hollow chocolate egg: It is tasty, if just this side of sickly sweet, yet crumbles when one tries to sink one's teeth in. Roy Carr and Tony Tyler, in the equally revered The Beatles: An Illustrated Record (also written in the late-70s), were less gentle: It would be naive to have expected the McCartneys [working as a team] to produce anything other than a fairly mediocre record. And so it is. [...] 'Suburban Pop 'n' Roll,' sneered the critics -- but it was neither good pop (being too contrived) nor good rock (being too saccharine). It was sta-pressed, ready-to-wear music, to be listened to in a lounge with plaster ducks on the wall, and it positively reeked of cosy domestica -- the kind of environment which stifles all creativity. [...] Grisly though this was, McCartney was to sink lower before rescuing his credibility in late 1973. I'm only posting these quotes to show that I wasn't inventing some alternate universe where Ram was panned. It was real. I've gotten past the stigma the album had when I first learned about it, and I love most of it -- but some of the criticism (its smugness, it's relative "safety" in the rough-and-tumble early '70s) is still valid, imo. That had less to do with the merits of George's solo career by 1975, and everything to do with Capitol wanting to squeeze some more Beatle money out of the public. Anyone could easily whip up a 10-12 track "best of" from George's first four LPs and the accompanying singles. How Ringo got an all-solo "best of" LP in 1976 and George didn't is an enduring mystery.
Will the Archive set of Wild Life contain better songs? If so, then yes, it will change my opinion of the album.
Indeed. Bob had the tracks in the can that could have made Self Portrait a compelling album, but chose (for reasons known only to him) to release something far more messy and less compelling. I don't think there's a great version of Wild Life in the MPL vaults, but I do think that an Archive set could improve its standing somewhat. If they put in into the full "early Wings" context, with "Ireland," "Little Lamb," "Hi Hi Hi" and (hopefully) some live 1972 tracks or even a whole show, it could tell a better story than Wild Life can by itself. I'd love a better mix of the album too -- not to replace the original, but as an alternate listen. Several tracks could be improved (imo) with a remix.
It s true that Ram was panned by some at the time influential rewiewers.But it is also true that it was a very popular album that also got some decent rewiews here and there. I have loved it since release day and frankly wasn t aware of the bad rewiews until many years later. Actually it seems a bigger issue today than in the time before internet.
Roy Carr and Tony Tyler, in the equally revered The Beatles: An Illustrated Record (also written in the late-70s), were less gentle: It would be naive to have expected the McCartneys [working as a team] to produce anything other than a fairly mediocre record. And so it is. [...] 'Suburban Pop 'n' Roll,' sneered the critics -- but it was neither good pop (being too contrived) nor good rock (being too saccharine). It was sta-pressed, ready-to-wear music, to be listened to in a lounge with plaster ducks on the wall, and it positively reeked of cosy domestica -- the kind of environment which stifles all creativity. [...] Grisly though this was, McCartney was to sink lower before rescuing his credibility in late 1973. I remember reading this when I was a kid, then getting bought Ram as a Christmas present, and thinking Roy Carr and Tony Tyler were talking rubbish
You're missing the point. Think a bit harder: he's sending a "message to Japanese fans." (I was gonna put a youtube link to his "message" track, but the best I could find was a video with the entire Tour Pack disc, and it's already been blocked on copyright grounds.)
That is true you could do that for sure, but like the disk controversy, it's simply a preference of how we digest the sets
I'm wondering since the first piece of the puzzle has not surfaced, has the next piece also been delayed for tomorrow? Time will tell!
Indeed. But I recall your contempt for those who preferred to digest their music on CD, and felt the urge to note that I offer no such contempt for your preference viz a viz downloaded visual goods.
Funny thing is that Amazon recently changed the picture on their site from showing the full books,cds and dvd to just a photo of the front cover. Odd since it is now nearly 30 days until release.
I am now thinking March 1st-with no inside info but at that point you have 3 weeks to promote it strong!
Does anyone have a pre-Flowers release listening plan? I'm not decided yet but I think I might do the full discography from McCartney II onwards (including B sides and bonus material from Mc II, TOW and POP Archive editions). Whatever I've got from Return To Pepperland will also be done at the right point also, as well as the Live Aid and Prince's Trust live performances. I'll probably also add episodes 7 and 8 of "McCartney on McCartney". I know the Put It There documentary is part of the set but as it's relevant to the recording and build up of the album it would make sense to watch that in advance as well. Anything else obvious I should throw in there that I've missed? I really want to get a sense for the build up to this album through the 80s! Edit: I might draw the line at watching Give My Regards To Broad Street, a listen to the album will suffice!
The number of times I've refreshed the page below today, hoping that "Audio (5)" becomes "Audio (6)" is ridiculous. I need to get a life!
Well Paul, if that's the way the wish to present them to us, I will take it that way without kicking, screaming or whining
I know, but it is the page where other Archive Collection bonus downloads have appeared, so no reason just yet to assume that any potential Flowers treats won't also appear here.
