Paul McCartney Archive Collection - 'Forthcoming Releases' [TBC]

The vinyl - that will be interesting. Will it be a 2LP set with archive banner? A single LP? Colored vinyl? All three?

 

Pretty sure it will be 2LP just like the others.

 

Thank you for saying that. I've been leading a double life here in this thread, enjoying the talk about Wild Life while harboring the private feeling that "Dear Friend" is, to my ears, the slowest, longest-feeling, most plodding, most boring Paul McCartney song that I can think of. It's the one track on the album that I involuntarily either skip or hit the "next track" button about two minutes in, unable to withstand any more. I wonder sometimes how many people actually would rate it so highly if it weren't for the "message to John" factor. All I know for sure is, to my tastes anyway, if my wife really wanted something that we disagree about, she'd only have to play this song in a continuous loop, and she'd break my will in less than 15 minutes, guaranteed. Ouch.

I, too, love "Some People Never Know" (and "Get On the Right Thing") and find it/them to be among the most underappreciated songs that McCartney ever has done. I'd particularly love to hear both performed live, but obviously the likelihood of that now is virtually nil. Still, they are quite catchy tunes, well performed, and while I understand why some find them to be an overdose of Linda backing vocals, to me they give the songs a bit of extra charm.

This is a spot-on analysis as I see it. So many years on, most people have made up their minds on the merits of the album overall, but like most other reissues in the series, the way that it is presented musically, and how it is framed as a narrative in the deluxe edition, should allow for some wiggle room and strategic reinterpretation. I'm neither strongly for nor against Wild Life as an album, but I'm willing to keep an open mind in reevaluating it based on what sir Paul chooses to share with us. Thus I'm eager for it to appear and to give it the time and space needed to rethink my original viewpoints. Bring it on, MPL.

Again, you've pretty much hit the nail on the head as to my own approach toward Beatles and solo Beatles projects at this point in history. For them to sell to me (again) in 2018 something that I've had since the 1970s or 1980s, they need to give me a reason to buy that goes beyond the name on the packaging. I have too many other required expenditures and too many other hobbies and interests also to indulge with what is left over. Even (ex-)Beatles have to compete. Again, I say that with no disrespect intended toward completists. I simply fell off the wagon some years ago as a matter of evolution and changing personal situations. To each his/her own, and (hopefully) enjoyably so.

Exactly. As one who has been going through and working with actual archives and historical documents as recently as, oh, yesterday afternoon, and having reproduced them for my own (non-Beatles-related) books in the past, I know precisely what you mean. There is a special joy in experiencing history "as it happened" even after the fact, as a fly on the wall, as if being there at the time and seeing/reading the same exact information that our subjects did originally. That is one of the greatest strengths of the McCartney deluxe editions and why they are so valuable not just for us, but also for future generations. I'm very glad to see that he gets it, and I strongly hope that he will continue the series accordingly.

Much as I love Steely Dan's music, I don't want for Paul McCartney to sound like Steely Dan, where even some of the best songs suffer from bloat, having endings that go on way too long and generally needing trimmed by about two to three minutes. See, for example, "Dear Friend" ... nicely allowing me to bring this post full circle. I might well like that song better if it were edited down to a more reasonable length. Or maybe not. I'll leave it up to my wife to find out for sure.

 

That's exactly how I feel about "Dear Friend" also, unfortunately. Even edited down, there's not a lot of "there" there. For what was obviously a sincerely held sentiment, he sure couldn't come up with the words to express it.

 

Well, I share your feelings about Dear Friend almost exactly. To the point where I actually did edit it down to a more manageable length. And at 2'45" it's perfectly enjoyable. The full length version though, sounds like he recorded a demo and left a gap where he hadn't written anything (much like the gap in A Day in the Life). And then, thinking of how successful the orchestral part in A Day in the Life had worked out, he decided to fill the gaps in Dear Friend with an orchestra rather than writing a chorus or middle eight.

What's interesting to me is that one could easily edit all the songs on Wild Life down to more Beatle-length performances without removing the essence of any of them. That said, one could do that for most of the tracks on Band on the Run as well...

 

Obviously, there are a couple key differences between WL and BOTR...

The tracks on BOTR were recorded over more than a 10 day period. Most of Wild Life was attempting to record the tracks "live", most likely to prove this is really a band. BOTR, by necessity, did not have the option of being recorded live and thus more time was spent in the studio on fleshing the tracks out with more musical ideas and overdubs.

Also, speaking of more musical ideas, there seemed to be more songs or song fragments used on BOTR. For instance, the song Band On The Run had three parts to it, medleyed into one song. If it were recorded for WL, it seems like each of those musical ideas would have been jammed out as a song in its own right... Perhaps stretched out to the point of breaking...

In the strictly A vs. B context, BOTR clearly beats WL on probably every front. But WL is still an interesting excursion on its own merits.. even if one has to dig a little deeper to find them.

 

Yes it is! and the one he recorded "Yesterday" on

 

I've been saving this post for a dedicated Wild Life reissue thread but I'm feeling hot to trot so I'm going to post it now

I don't think Wild Life was actually recorded with the aim of making an album, in much the same way that McCartney II only became an album when someone else heard the tapes and suggested that it could be.

I think McCartney simply booked some studio time to road test Wings, to see if they'd work well together in the studio. I think the decision to make an album came after the fact, possibly when someone else suggested that McCartney release the tracks they'd recorded. I wonder whether the notion that Dylan had recorded an album quickly was put to McCartney when he queried whether or not he'd get away with it.

My reasoning is this: Wild Life has only 8 songs on it. One of them was recorded during the Ram sessions and two were studio jams. That means that McCartney entered the studio with only five new songs. Surely not even he would have expected to make an album with only five songs in his pocket (or would he)? Slane has suggested that Bip Bop was recorded separately by Paul and Linda, possibly as a demo. That would leave only 4 "proper" songs. I think it far more likely that Wings booked studio time with a view to recording three or four songs over a week to see how they worked together as a band than that they tried to make an album in a week with only four songs available.

Even if Bip Bop was recorded by Wings during the Wild Life sessions, even that makes more sense if one understands that they weren't recording songs for an album; in that scenario, it doesn't really matter what they record: any old thing will do. The aim isn't to make a record, it's too see how well they work and play together.

I think it was only after the sessions were done that the idea of making an album came about. McCartney liked the energy of Mumbo, so threw it in; listened back to the reggae jam and realised he could turn it into Love is Strange and, now armed with seven songs, pulled out Dear Friend to complete the set. The idea that he didn't need to polish up/edit the recordings probably came from the idea that issuing such a rough and ready set of recordings was okay because Dylan had already done likewise.

 

Well, yes. But my point was simply that both albums contained a large number of songs that could easily be edited down without losing any significant or unique musical content. I was making no comparison regarding the quality of that content.

 

I didn't say "Dear Friend" sounded finished. On the contrary...

 

Sorry, I must have misread it.

 

No problem! I enjoyed reading your response.

 

This seems very likely to me, I can easily agree that it may simply have been a few jam sessions that evolved into an album after Paul was happy with how they bonded musically.

I also doubt that Paul would have attempted to record an album with so few songs ready for the sessions.

 

Yeah. I didn't mean to imply that you were comparing the content. But your comment served as a mental springboard for my mini-essay doing just that...

 

Excellent analysis. And you know what? The songs that sound the most finished are the ones that you'd call "proper" songs, which I think means Paul went into the studio to record those songs with a more serious album-inclusion intention.

P.S. These are the discussions I have missed on this forum since the last McCartney Archive release! Band on the Run's archive was what introduced me to this forum, and the discussions around it formed the reason for me to join.

 

I'm pretty much with you guys. I'd heard good things about the song, and went in expecting something great and powerful and......it just doesn't do a thing for me. The song surely sounds heartfelt, but like most of the rest of Wings Wild Life, I must admit it just doesn't hit me. Maybe one day it'll click, but I doubt it.

 

Thank you Mr Clint Harrington...

 

Wonderful comment, as usual, and I say that as someone who personally is very moved by “Dear Friend” even though I can see how it does drag on for some.

This album is prime for re-evaluation if released and framed properly with the bonus songs for context.

 

So, if we stop discussing these type of things, you will quit this forum?

Hmmm ...

 

I also agree that this is a distinct possibility.

And the idea presented by a few posters today that WL could use some severe editing is a thought I’ve long had. I like most of the tracks, even the jams, but several of them could lose 2-3 minutes without losing any essential content.

I also think that placing Mumbo and Bip Bop as the record openers was beyond silly, especially given that they’re too long in and of themselves. If they had been two minutes each and either placed differently on the album (or moved to single B sides), they would have a lot less haters.

Oh and not to mention that track 3, Love Is Strange, starts with an absurdly long instrumental intro! So it takes nearly 10 minutes into the album for the listener to get any legit straightforward Paul McCartney vocals! Ludicrous!

 

Hey!

 

Well stated, Paul. In the end there are so many variables that it's hard to draw any firm conclusions other than that, beyond a point and like many other successful artists, Paul McCartney made an album when he felt like making one, and did it with whatever particular mood he was feeling at the time. Some prefer the rather unpolished side of Sir Paul, accepting at face value that some of the tunes might be less than stellar as a tradeoff for the relatively spontaneous sound and feel of the whole. Others prefer the more crafted, customized, polished approach, accepting in turn that in exchange for the slick sound and feel there are times when an idea is overproduced and overextended. My own take on it is that the relative strength or weakness of any McCartney album ultimately rests with the material more than the approach. For example, some cite Wild Life in judging McCartney as weak at creating a fairly off-the-cuff album, yet they'll also say that The Russian Album is a solid, refreshingly honest and straightforward batch of music although it needed only two days or so to record.

Then there is the relative appetite that he is feeling when coming into a project. Many feel that Band on the Run and Tug of War are great albums because McCartney willed them to be great (yet also because maybe the songs were better and selected somewhat more judiciously). So, what, then, does that say about when he doesn't seem to feel so motivated to make a great album and instead just cranks out product due to deadlines or a feeling that "it's time to record again"? (Red Rose Speedway? Back to the Egg? Pipes of Peace? Each has its fans and its detractors, usually based on the strength of the songs or lack thereof.) Should he stick to making albums only when he feels like he can crank out a classic? Is he taking advantage of his fans by putting out some subpar material, knowing that a certain number of people will buy it just because his name is on it? I don't think that either scenario is either likely or factual. But it does have the potential to lead to some interesting discussions about what makes an artist and his/her work successful or not and what factors comes into play in the process.

Ultimately in such matters I'm content to let my ears do my thinking for me. If I like it, it's a great album. If not, then it isn't. However, I've come to see that even that isn't as simple as it sounds. Perhaps more than any other artist I apply the "five times" rule to any McCartney album, refusing to pass final judgment until I've heard it enough times to let it all sink it and find its place. The Archive Collection represents a pleasant new twist on that, obliging me to listen to each album anew (at least five more times) and in a new context, to see if my initial impressions still hold or if perhaps they have become outdated. I both appreciate and enjoy the challenge.

 

Once again I'm in the minority on Wild Life. I love how the songs play out and feel Dear Friend could go on and on even longer. It's this longing recollection of his temporary loss of a good friend and I think the sparseness adds to its magic. I love how the orchestration builds not unlike recent arrangements by Beck on Morning Phase. Moody, jazzy and a bit slowly soulful. On the other hand My Love on RRS could be cut by 8 minutes

In terms of the long intro on Love is Strange, it's a perfect influence by Dub Reggae which was getting big in the UK at the time. All instruments versions of songs emphasizing the drums and bass.

I think Paul should make a new album that's not over produced using the flavor of the month producer. I'd wish he'd stop going in that direction as many of his later albums sound scattered with too many styles mixed in. That worked with the entire group on the White Album but very few other artists can make it work. He needs a singular vision IMHO.

 

Love Wild Life. Among my favorite McCartney LPs.

Agree on Paul's tendency to do flavor-of-the-month stuff. In my dream world, Paul's next move is to reunite Wings, the 1979 version. Laurence Juber still has his chops, Denny Laine still tours, not sure about Steve Holly. This band plays a bunch of theaters. I know, never going to happen.