Paul McCartney Archive Collection - Tug Of War & Pipes Of Peace coming! (Part Two)

Thank you so much for starting that thread; it is shocking when you see how harsh they often were when reviewing Paul.

 

I have many contemporary period articles from my dissertation I wrote on Paul/Wings. (Yes, a thesis on Wings! Lol). I'll do my best to upload some to that specific thread

 

Thanks, that would be brilliant, and I would be very grateful.

I would also love to read your thesis about Paul/Wings, if that is possible. If you still have it, and want to share it with me, then all you would need to do is send me a private message.

 

Sure. its being published with other graduates work in a UK academic music journal. (Don't have much more info than that at this stage)

 

I just wish I had some 80s stuff to put in there... I do have Record Mirror's (positive) review of Tug Of War in printed form somewhere, along with some Q articles and reviews, but that's about it...

 

Please do add to the thread. I'd love to read these articles.

 

In Q Magazines first issue back in October 1986 (with McCartney on the cover as he was interviewed) they gave Press To Play its total of 5 stars. From memory the reviewer said there were only 3 McCartney albums we should all be grateful for: Ram, Band On The Run and now Press To Play.

 

I have that issue. Will have to check out the PTP review. TBH, I can't remember it!

 

Yes, I would like to see Andy's dissertation/thesis too.

But Andy is not the only intellectual here. I myself have written 3 dissertations on Paul, including such brilliant treatises on:

1. The Muses of Paul McCartney and Their Effects on His Songwriting Prowess:
This paper examines the quality of Paul's songwriting by comparing his girlfriends (his "muses") at the time, who inspired him. For instance, Jane Asher inspired Paul's songs from Revolver; Linda Eastman (later McCartney) inspired "Maybe I'm Amazed" and Ram; Heather Mills inspired Driving Rain; and Nancy Shevell inspired "My Valentine". The answer is obvious: Paul's greatest songwriting inspirations come from his most inspired muses. Conclusion: Yep, that muse with the physically limited ability at pole vaulting was definitely a wrong move.

2. The Granny Songs of Paul McCartney: An Alternative Viewpoint:
This study analyses a random sample of 47,561 grandmothers over the course of 50 years. Data indicate that most grandmothers (99.5%) do NOT prefer Paul's so-called "granny" songs. Instead, most grandmothers prefer "Helter Skelter", "Why Don't We Do It In The Road", and "Kreen Akrore" over "Your Mother Should Know", "Honey Pie", and "When I'm 64". Both placebo groups (grandmothers who did not receive marijuana) and case-study groups (grandmothers who received weekly supplies of marijuana for 50 years) were analyzed.

3. Paul McCartney: The Ralph Lauren of Music:
Before Kanye West stole my own original idea, I investigated the hypothesis that Paul McCartney is worthy of being called the "Ralph Lauren of Music". Both Paul and Ralph are the greatest in their field (music for Paul; some other field for Ralph). This thesis will also prove that John Lennon was the "Yves Saint Laurent of Music", George Harrison was the "Giorgio Armani of Music ", and Ringo Starr was the "Coco Chanel of Music".

If anyone would like to read these masterpieces, please send a self-addressed envelope and a check for $250. That should cover mailing expenses and alcohol purchases.

Arnie

 

I hope they will be released in June, as I'm really looking forward to both remasters.

 

Comedy gold, Arnie!

 

Me too!

I've never hidden my opinion that POP is Paul's worst album, and I find it to be terminally dull in way too many places. BUT..... Just as others have used the Archive series as a way of re-evaluating albums and gaining a new appreciation, I'm certainly going to give myself the opportunity of doing the same, so I'll be in for the deluxe edition for definite (same with TOW which I very highly already).

 

That is certainly the best attitude to have IMO, and I hope that the reissue does change your mind about the album, even just parts of it.

 

At worst I'll find it dull in higher definition than before!

 

You keep saying this, but people DID see it; it had made its money back before being issued on DVD. CRITICS didn't like it, but I'm glad he did it. He wanted to make a British movie and he managed it. He got a number two single and a number one album out of it. Lots of 'great' movies never made their money back - or a profit - so he didn't do TOO badly with it.

 

I have always seen the film described as both a critical and financial failure, which must be incorrect.

Does that mean that the film was commercially profitable?

If it did make money, or at least not lose any, and it led to a successful single and album, then it cannot be seen as the disaster that critics called it. I still don't think that it is a good film, but it is also not dreadful, and I actually enjoy the music scenes in the film a great deal.

 

Does it tell you on IMDB or something the box office gross?

I'd imagine after 30 years of being released on video, Laserdisc and DVD, not to mention being sold to TV and cable, the film will have more than made it's money back.

 

I am very grateful to you for sending me your dissertation; it was a very enjoyable read.

In my opinion, you have succinctly, eloquently and successfully made the case that Paul was the victim of a press bias against him during the early and mid-70's, a bias that affected his reputation and confidence, and one that continues amongst some journalists to this day.

You also successfully showed that the bias most likely arose originally because Paul sued for the dissolution of the Beatles, and was thus blamed for ending the group.

Overall, I think that you did a brilliant job of backing up your points with ample amounts of evidence, and your dissertation, coupled with the recent re-evaluations of Paul's solo career, both go to show that Paul was the victim of unfair critical sniping from much of the established rock press.

Just so that everyone knows, Andy is more than happy to send his dissertation to anyone who sends him a private message asking for it. I strongly suggest that you do ask for it if you are interested in reading a thorough, well thought-out dissertation proving that Paul was often the victim of a bias music press.

 

This pretty much summarizes the entire early 80s for Paul - plenty of high profile products issued to commercial success while each of those products chipped away at his credibility. The guy was an automatic "buy" for a whole lot of people at the beginning of the decade. By the middle, considerably fewer people felt that way. The teetering success of Spies Like Us was the last gasp from an abused fan base tired of defending his goofy weed-addled decisions.

 

It is ironic that many critics attacked the catchy and melodic 'commercial music' that he made in the early 80's, music that he made in response to the critical drubbing that the more experimental McCartney 2 received. Quite simply, he couldn't win either way with many critics.

It is a shame that he didn't ignore the critics and follow up McCartney 2 with a similarly experimental and synth based album, instead of waiting until PTP before he again attempted a more cutting edge/contemporary sound. I say this as a fan of Tug Of War, the original songs on Broadstreet, some of POP and We All Stand Together.

 

I'd like to read it, because I personally don't think I'd be convinced of that! I just think his 70s material was (deservedly) seen as weaker than late-period Beatles music - which most folks were expecting him to keep delivering - and mostly evaluated quite fairly. I just spent half an hour reading through the "clippings" thread, and there are positive reviews for many of the singles and albums - do I need to quote them?

McCartney - "an immensely warm and pleasurable album"
Wild Life - "a good, solid album"
Give Ireland Back - "It's a great stomper and Paul's vocal is in top form"
Mary Had A Little Lamb - "Catchy, nice ... and maybe a hit"
Little Woman Love - "a nice boogie feel to it ... it should be an easy hit"
Red Rose Speedway - "charmingly simple" and, in another clipping "Paul has really done it; he's really made a nice record"
Helen Wheels - "has everyone jigging about and saying things like 'Now this I like'" and, in another clipping "a goodie from Paul"
Band on the Run - "a positive masterstroke of an album ... a great album"
Listen to What the Man Said - "lovely record"
Venus & Mars - "of the 13 tracks only three are anything less than brilliant"
Letting Go - "a firm favorite ... so many people do have the album, will there be enough people to make it the hit it should be"​

Aside from a review ripping Ram and a couple nasty reviews of some singles, most of that stuff is fairly positive.

You guys sound like maccafan seeing vast conspiracies in every negative McCartney review, that our kind Sir was somehow persecuted during the 70s. And while I rarely agree with that guy, I'll at least give him credit for coming out vehemently against some of Paul's music (Mc2, Fireman), even though my positions differ with his. If you're hoping every album gets a "positive reappraisal" in the press, you're not being AT ALL objective. When you start to question Broad Street's reputation, you start losing credibility yourself!

Yes, it absolutely can be seen as the disaster that critics called it. I was in college when it opened and it was gone from the Minneapolis theaters in ONE WEEK. I remember, because I didn't get a chance to get off-campus to see it opening week, and then it was gone. A poorly-reviewed film that doesn't last more than a week in a major metropolitan center is the DEFINITION of a (film) disaster.

I know, Ben, that you take great offense to the Landau Ram review, but isn't it just possible that Landau - like many critics - didn't think that album was very good? If he was at the center of this "press bias", then why did he do a complete 180 two years later and praise Band on the Run to the high heavens? And what's the reason for the vicious reviews of "Ringo" and its hit single "Photograph"? Or the above-mentioned Elton John tracks? Is there a "hidden agenda" there, too? That particularly nasty Ram review in the "clippings" thread is notable because the reviewer recalls "my enjoyment, on its particular level, of his first solo album last year". If this "press bias" existed, it was pretty poorly executed, if these reviewers couldn't even stick to "the plan" from one album to the next...

 

Paul was not and never has been a victim. Imo
Everyone gets bad rewiews sometimes

 

Oh, I hate these type of reviews. Now I have to figure out which 3 songs were not the brilliant ones. There go another couple of hours of wasting my time, just to solve this mystery.

Arnie

 

Don't you also want to read my dissertations? Remember, all three---that's right, all three (!!!)---for only $250. That's cheaper than a good seat at any Paul concert.

Of course, my dissertations are presented with such perfection that you won't be able to argue against them. But still, they deserve to have a place on your shelf next to Lewisohn and Plato.

Arnie

 

Ok, well when you put it THAT way ... I didn't realize you'd offer me $250 to read your works, Arnie. Let me know if you just wanna send the cash to my paypal address.

But I'd read Andy's for free.