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

I didn't mean that literally no one saw the film. Of course they did. I saw it twice. Both times in empty theaters in NY and Boston within days of release.
I should have said relatively few people saw it.
Paul was probably hoping for a blockbuster, but he wound up with a niche film.
I don't remember anyone outside of my band of Beatle buddies ever taking notice of Broadstreet. Then or now.
That's why I don't think Broadstreet was the career disaster many believe it was. It certainly didn't help matters.
But I don't think it was poison.
What did hurt him was the quality of the songs he was releasing as singles at the time. Yes, they sold in big numbers, but they didn't help his cred.
That's how I see it, and how I remember it.
Just my opinion, nothing more. Not meant to be definitive.
And, I'm a huge McCartney fan, I need to add that. I'm not saying this to bash him.

 

I think that I may have given the wrong impression; I do not believe that there was any 'conspiracy' against Paul amongst the rock press. I don't believe, and have never claimed to believe, that a group of rock journalists got together, and conspired to attack Paul.

I also don't believe that every single critic and/or review were overly harsh and negative; as you have shown, Paul still continued to have some positive reviews. One of the members of this forum, Paul Levinson, was actually one of the few critics standing up for McCartney and Ram at the time.

Finally, I also don't suddenly love everything that Paul has ever released. If you go through my posts, including the ones on your brilliant series of threads where we rate his solo work, you will see that amongst the praise that I have given his music, I also criticise some of his decisions, and some of his song choices and some of his production choices.
I have even posted a series of my playlists, where I made what I consider to be improvements to his albums by swapping out songs for B-sides, unreleased songs, demos, etc, and only 4 or 5 of his albums were left as they were released (BOTR, Ram, New, Tug Of War and Chaos).

What I believe, and what Andy's dissertation shows in my opinion, is that a group of the leading rock journalists were overly critical of much of his early and mid-70's music, because they blamed him for the break-up of the Beatles, and because they saw his songs about home living as inconsequential, especially compared to Lennon's, whose song lyrics at the time relayed the same political views that they had.

The arc of Andy's dissertation is that the opinion's of the critics changed over time; many of them were initially critical of Paul and his music, mainly because of Paul 'quitting the band' and suing the other Beatles, but that over time as Paul became more and more polished and professional in the studio, they were eventually won around to his music, and started to judge him more fairly.

I disagree with you regarding Broadstreet if it is true that it made a profit; I don't consider any profitable film a huge failure in a commercial sense, even if it didn't become a huge success at the box office.
Where I do agree that it was a failure is in the artistic sense; it simply doesn't hold together as a film, and is not very interesting in my opinion. The only thing that I like about it is the music.

I personally think that you should read Andy's dissertation. Once you have, I will be interested to see whether you agree with me or not.

 

The lyrics are dreadful. The melody is nice my it isn't otherworldly like "My Love" where he could have just sung "whoah whoah" and it would have been good.

Oh wait - that's what he did.

 

I wish I could be as open-minded...POP will be the only album in the archive reissue series I will *not* be purchasing, never mind purchasing the deluxe edition (as I have with all the others to date).

I played POP to death when it first came out (my general m.o. with any McCartney release), but after a few months, I realized I'd been convincing myself that the album is better than it really is. Too overblown, lyrics that truly justified the criticisms normally (and wrongly) leveled at him, and even melodies - always his forte - that were pretty pedestrian. The Jackson duets do not work for me (I'm probably the only person who'd take "The Girl Is Mine" over either of them), and I actually get downright angry whenever I hear "Keep Under Cover" as it has one of the best openings ever - very "On The Way"-like and just gets you primed for quintessential Macca vocals - only to devolve into schlocky madness.

There are albums of Paul's that I may not listen to as much as others but I always find some 'takeaway', even if it's just an appreciation of him trying something different. As such, I'll almost always defend his work. Aside from "So Bad" (and even that can be iffy depending on the day), I still haven't found that takeaway from POP. The only album of his I personally rate as "not very good". I spun my vinyl copy last night, genuinely hoping to catch some of the enthusiasm for it from this thread! But no such luck, even 30+ years later. The difference between it and how I felt after listening to Press To Play (which went on immediately after POP) was like night and day.

 

I suppose that at the end of the day, there is no point in trying to force yourself to like something. I personally enjoy songs like Keep Under Cover, the title track, So Bad, the Jackson duets and Through Our Love, but musical taste is different for everyone, and I can understand why you are not a fan of the album.

I suppose that the more positive way of looking at it is that you find something to enjoy in all of his albums, accept for POP.

 

It honestly hurts me in a small way because musically, Paul is "my guy"!! Not just listening to his music, but learning it on guitar or piano, deconstructing all its parts (from instruments to recording techniques) in the most geeky of fashion - I'm sure folks on here can relate . It's not even that they're bad tracks per se - for lack of a better way to put it (nor intending to suggest he wasn't emotionally invested), it just sounds very much like he was "going through the motions" from a musical standpoint. No papable sense of adventure, experimentation or pushing himself that (to me) seems evident in most of his recordings - just what might appeal or "sound good" to the masses.

Ah well - more money left for the TOW set and the next round of reissues, whenever those might come down the pipeline!

 

I wonder if hearing the demos and early takes of the songs would change your mind? A common complaint about the album is that it is overproduced and too shiny; I personally much prefer the demo of Sweetest Little Show to the version on the album.

Hopefully the reissue will contain some of the demos for those who dislike the production on the album, but like the songs themselves.

 

Totally agree. For me, the album contains some of the worst songs in Paul's songwriting canon. They are just flat out bad. Others may disagree and that's fine but to this day I do not play a single track off Pipes of Peace. Broadstreet is almost as bad (the only redeeming feature being No More Lonely Nights). I think those two albums, the film and the Spies Like Us single were career missteps that he never recovered from. The 80s was a tough decade for acts from the 60s and 70s.

 

Do you really think that he never recovered from that period of time? Do you mean in a reputation sense or a commercial sense, or both?

I personally think that since Flaming Pie he has been on a great run, and most of his albums since that time have done well on the charts and been met by mainly positive reviews from the critics.

In the UK there are still many jokes about We All Stand Together, but the rest of the world seems to hold him in very high regard.

 

I'd love to have most solo Beatles songs as demos. Hand them over to Giles Martin first. Probably more John and George than Paul in general, since they tended to have overly-cluttered arrangements. But they all were guilty at times of gilding the lily.

 

Thanks for clarifying. I do look forward to reading Andy's dissertation on this; I sent him my email, and he said he'd shoot it my way later. I've always been particularly intrigued by the critical appraisal of Paul's work, probably because I'm so critical of some of it myself! I love the guy, but I find myself siding with some of the harsher reviews, particularly those from the 70s. For me, the issue wasn't Paul's promotion of family life and domesticity that I disliked in his work, but rather what I felt was lazy writing. Fortunately for me, I've found his post- Flaming Pie career far more rewarding than I ever would've expected, but now he doesn't put out an album every year. Damn, you just can't have everything, can you?

 

I would also find it very interesting to hear all of the Beatles demos. I always wonder whether one exists for In My Life, because it would potentially shine a light onto who wrote the song.

I would also love to hear the demos that they gave to Dick James; I wonder whatever happened to them?

Hopefully the demos for the songs that they gave away will one day all be collected and released. I love hearing the small preview of World Without Love that was put online a year or two ago.

 

As you can tell, I probably rate his 70's work at a higher level than you do overall, but I do accept that some of his songwriting was lazy, especially lyrically, most likely as the result of a certain substance.

Thankfully for me, I find the melody and instrumentation to be more important than the lyrics, and lyrics don't have to actually mean something in a literal sense for me to enjoy them, so it doesn't bother me when I listen to a song like Jet or Junior's Farm. I see Monkberry Moon Delight as having lyrics that are just as successful at being surrealist as I Am The Walrus. I also enjoy the Dadaist feel that some of the lyrics have, which also remind me of Bowie's cut and paste technique.

I feel that there is a double standard when Paul is criticised for lyrics that are nonsensical, when Nirvana and R.E.M both later got praise for the same thing.

Occasionally a lyric does bother me; I wish that Getting Closer didn't have the Salamander line, even if it does apparently mean something, and I am also not keen on his attempt at using Cockney rhyming slang, which left us with lyrics about a 'Dustbin Lid'.

The problem that I have with some of the reviews was how negative they were. I can happily accept that someone may not like Ram, but I cannot see how it is in any way fair to call it a 'nadir in 60's songwriting'. I also understand how McCartney 2 is not for everyone, but I would never say that it was not worth the plastic that it was printed on.

John and George also received poor reviews at times, but they were very rarely spoken about with the same feeling of disrespect and outright dismissal that Paul had to put up with. I think that it is telling that it was Paul who was driven to feeling like all of his 70's work was rubbish, not John or George.

Thankfully, things seem to be balancing out; Paul is no longer seen as the villain who ended the Beatles by many people, and much of his most maligned solo work is now receiving positive critical re-evaluation.

His more recent solo work has also been more fairly reviewed, at least most of the time. I still get the feeling that some reviewers give him positive comments through gritted teeth, or that they praise an album like New, but then only give it a 3 out of 5, but I will take this any day over seeing his music dismissed outright.

 

I saw Broadstreet the week it came out also and it was pretty much what I expected. I didn't think it was great, but not particularly bad either. I agree with you regarding his singles. He seemed to be aiming for a different (maybe more mainstream if that's possible for Paul McCartney) audience and I wasn't sure I was in it any more. After Wings I loved McCartney II, and also Tug of War minus the Wonder tracks, but then Pipes of Peace came along. To that point I didn't think he was capable of releasing such a poor album, so it was a real eye opener for me. Broadstreet is a little better , and then I really like Press to Play. The sound is 80s but the songwriting is much stronger.

 

Both. He doesn't sell anywhere near the pre-1983 numbers and I think that is largely due to his loss of the casual music fan that buys songs they like rather than artists they like. He has a loyal fan base but he just isn't a commercially popular artist anymore. Nowadays, only one person I know still buys his music. Thirty years ago that figure would have been 70% of people I know. He gets a massive rub from being in The Beatles but little of his popularity with the general public comes from his solo career. Conversely though, he has enjoyed a positive reaction from critics in the last two decades.

 

I think that POP suffered because he overstretched himself; it would have been much stronger had he added the three original songs from Broadstreet, and recorded his own version of On The Wings Of A Nightingale. He could also have included Twice In A Lifetime and finished Give Us A Chord, Roy.

Still, I think that Paul actually had a very successful 1980's all things considered; he had a lot of commercial success, and many hit singles, an impressive feat for a man who had already been in pop music for 20 years, and he also released experimental and creative albums like PTP and McCartney 2 alongside his more traditional work. He then capped the decade off by successfully returning to touring.

I bet that quite a few 60's musical acts wished that they could have had half the success that Paul had in the 80's.

 

It is quite amazing that despite that drop-off in sales, he has still managed to have more UK top 25 hits over the last 25 years than a band like the Talking Heads managed to have at their peak, whilst still charting top 10 albums around the world, and that is not including his recent collaborations with Kanye West.

I suppose that Paul is just held to a higher standard because of the massive success that he had in the 60's and 70's.

I also think that a drop-off in sales would most likely have happened in any case, no matter how good his albums were; how many 5o, 60 and 70 year old acts still sell like they did when they were young? On top of this, sales of pop music are lower now than they were 35 years ago.

Still, I understand what you mean, and I definitely agree that in the UK, and maybe in other parts of the world as well, his reputation suffered because he was associated with the Frog Chorus and The Girl Is Mine.

 

All very good points. As much I get down on him these days and his "old man" voice I do admire him immensely.

 

To be fair, every popular artist falls off commercially once they reach a certain age. Even if POP and the Broadstreet project weren't so poorly regarded, I'm not sure Paul would have done much better than he did in the years since.

 

On the Wings of a Nightingale is a great song - agreed it would have been nice on a McCartney album, but I like the Everly Brothers version which we wouldn't have had he recorded it himself. Yeah, he was successful which is sort of my point. Kenny Loggins and Loverboy were successful in the 80s, but were they making great music?

 

It would have been a shame if the Everly Brothers version was never released, so it was probably a good thing that Paul didn't release his own version, but I still think that he should have added the Broadstreet original songs to POP so that it had more substance.

I feel that it is unfair to compare him to Loverboy and Kenny Loggins; Paul actually had more commercial success in the 80's than either of them, and they never released songs as good as Wanderlust, Here Today, Take It Away, etc, or songs as creative as Pretty Little Head, Secret Friend or Temporary Secretary.

His success did backfire when he started to be seen as the person who duetted with Michael Jackson on a cheesy love song, the person who sang with frogs and the person who duetted on the cheesy race relations song with Stevie Wonder, but I still think that, whether you like those songs or not, his material on McCartney 2, Tug Of War, POP and PTP still had a lot more going for it than many other acts overall.

 

I like all of those songs, but that's not what was being played on the radio. We All Stand Together actually didn't bother me when taken in the context of the cartoon short. We in The US had to get the single imported. It wasn't released here so zero backlash for that. I would be willing to bet that 95% of Americans have never heard it or of it. Same with Once Upon A Long Ago - no US release.

 

Correct. Which was part of why it was so frustrating, even annoying, seeing Doug Sulpy standing his ground in print in The 910 over time, opining relentlessly that it was a piece of junk. It came off as stubbornness more than an objective viewpoint. As with anyone, he was and is entitled to his opinion. But sometimes it helps to step back and take note of which way the wind is blowing, and then ride with it rather than against it. Everybody else seemed to get it. Now it appears the issue pretty much is settled, such that Ram occupies a safe and secure place in the McCartney canon of essential works. Most fans are quite happy with that result.

 

The movie was an unambiguous flop at the box office, at least in the U.S. The film was released in late October and had essentially vanished from theaters by Thanksgiving weekend, with a total domestic gross of just shy of $1.4 million. Two separate industry sites confirm this -- see below (and note that the box office totals listed by IMDb are cumulative, not weekly grosses).

http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/mpaarating.htm?yr=1984&rating=PG&p=.htm
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087337/business

If it made its money back, it must have been internationally. In the U.S. it tanked badly.

 

Agreed & I'll add with a similar sort of caveat that this is just my opinion - Press To Play torpedoed his career at the time. My dad was a huge Beatles and especially Paul guy and even he kind of jumped off the bus for that album. I don't even think we owned it, and that's saying a lot.

Broadstreet was an artistic failure, the movie and the album. But I think everybody saw it as Paul being Paul. The idea of him reconnecting with the Beatle roots seemed cool and then the album came out and it was like, "Why is he redoing Yesterday?" The whole thing didn't work, but it was alright. And "No More Lonely Nights" was huge - I remember my dad playing that intro on the piano all the time, I still consider that the last gasp of the classic McCartney. Things done changed with Press To Play.