Do you feel Mccartney "lost it" after Speed of Sound?

It's the blues!

Who says that rock music must have thought-provoking, meaningful lyrics? Can't you just have some fun? Before you say i'm being contradictory, sure, Macca's lyrics are usually lyrically challanged, but they are still fun. The tunes are fun. "When I hear "Listen To What The Man" Said", or "Silly Love Songs", i'm listening to the musical backing and how FUN the song is.

I like to act a fool and sing along with some of these songs. That's part of their appeal. That's why people remember them and they became best-selling hits.

 

Why Don't We Do It In The Road is NOT meant to be taken seriously......like Grant said, it's a fun song.....and rocks harder for me that anything by Nickelback!

 

A very good point about "Why Don't We Do It In The Road".

If it works on its own level, it is as "perfect" as "Strawberry Fields Forever".

"Meant For You" by The Beach Boys (or even their B-side "You're Welcome") works for me in much the same way.

It isn't that the lyric has to be complex and/or verbose to be good, it's that it has to fit in with the music that is enjoyable and draws you in to its sentiment.

If it does make you think, that's icing on the cake.

 

I grew up on pop music. I don't take musical content so seriously. I never could stand songs and artists that were intensely serious for long. It's why I could never take progressive rock for even more than an album's worth of time, even though I like some of it. Obviously, Rush and ELP are not my favorites because of this. It's also why I never got into the brooding music of Depeche Mode, or the like. Way too serious for me.

 

I've read this whole thread word-for-word, and it's interesting to hear all the different opinions.

Did he lose it after "Speed Of Sound"? Lord knows. But he lost me after Band On The Run (except for the Mull Of Kintyre single)....

 

I'd argue Magical Mystery Tour-era fluff. Fool on the Hill, eh, okay, but Hello Goodbye, Your Mother Should Know?

Then we get Wild Honey Pie, Martha My Dear -- most of the bad tracks on the white album. At least John's crap was *interesting*, even if it didn't properly belong there. Paul's crap was filler. Same difference between disliking Pink Floyd and disliking Yes.

 

Dunno about that. I like "Face Dances" less than the rest of the Who's catalog because it's not very good. There are moments, yeah, but it's not up to the consistently high standards even on the weaker earlier Who albums (By Numbers, Who Are You), or especially Pete's demos. For example, listen to "Cache Cache" on Face Dances back to back with the version on Scoop.

 

I'm just thankful that he doesn't listen to the critics and still releases new music! We'll never hear new George material ever again, We haven't heard new Lennon material for 24 years nor will we ever again. That leaves Paul and Ringo. It may not be the greatest stuff. But I'll sure take it over nothing at all!

 

I'm pretty sure John wrote "Fool On The Hill". "Hello Goodbye" was also deceptively complicated, musically, and one of my Beatle favorites.

Also, Paul wrote a couple of the best tracks on the White Album, "Martha My Dear" and "Back In The USSR", so, it is a matter of opinion of which were bad.

 

In general that is true. But I was thinking specifically of the two post-Moon albums, and how the majority of Who fans rate Face Dances as being godawful while they go much easier on It's Hard. Neither one is a masterpiece, but in my opinion It's Hard is a much blander, less interesting, less creative album than Face Dances. But people go easier on it because it sorta has that familiar "Who sound" while Face Dances does not.

 

Nah. In his Playboy interview song-by-song analysis, John said he had nothing to do with Fool on the Hill, and then singled it out as an example of how Paul can write good lyrics "when he tries".

 

Paul wrote "Fool On The Hill". Hunter Davies, The Beatles' official biographer, was with Paul at the time the song was written. According to Hunter, the song was at least partially inspired by a walk in the countryside with Martha, his dog.

 

Hellooo! Why don't we do it in the road is Paul's sarcastic reply to his bandmates not wanting to play together-ever-in front of other people-and increasingly, with each other. This is pissed off Paul and it sounds great. Around this time he went in and played on Steve Miller Band's song "My Dark Hour"-another ferocious feel my pain type song. The Beatles thought Paul was crazy for wanting to play concerts, unannounced at local colleges or pubs, or to play on a ship with a boat full of lucky fans. So thus, George, Ringo, and John-Why don't we do it (the concert) in the road-no one will be watching us anyway?

In retrospect, Paul was just deluding himself about the reality of the band.

 

I have to agree with an earlier posting - I may not like the stuff, but congratulations to McCartney for still being able to release new material. He's already given me enough great music to last my lifetime.

 

A great singles artist, Paul McCartney never released a solo album as convincing as IMAGINE, PLASTIC ONO BAND, or ALL THINGS MUST PASS, unless we count WINGS GREATEST.

Look at the release dates of his albums and the various singles not attached to albums. He maintained a fairly hectic recording pace through the seventies, diluting what might have been a classic catalog with lots of album filler.

Then again, you could say the same thing about Elton John, James Brown, and a bunch of other folks. The attitude then was that the audience would forget you if you didn't have new product in the bins. Compare that to today, when people like Sarah McLachlan and Peter Gabriel can spend the better part of a decade getting an album together, or a label spends eighteen months or more milking a hit album from Janet Jackson or Shania Twain with music videos, remixes, concert DVDs, etc.

 

I have to disagree, I think Ram and band on the Run are just as good.

Sean

 

We'll have to agree to disagree, then. I'm not one of those everything-John-Lennon-did-was-pure-genius types -- I find their hero worship embarassing, while the object of their affection found it fatal -- but IMAGINE and PLASTIC ONO BAND are, to me, the only good-to-the-last-cut Beatles solo albums (ignoring the incongrous "bonus" tracks appended to the POB CD).

I have to ignore the bonus "Apple Jam" disc on ALL THINGS MUST PASS to consider it great, while a good third or more of each of McCartney's solo albums is, in my opinion, disposable. And RINGO can only be mistaken for a great album in its current CD configuration, and even then, it's a stretch.

 

Yes, it was a funny song, and this about him being frustrated about the other members loatheness to play a concert is documented.

As you know, most people naturally think it is about sex.

 

Could it simply be that Paul was a SINGLES artist, and many people here are holding him to ALBUM standards? Maybe this is one of the reasons why people hold Lennon in a higher regard? I think perhaps, while Lennon was no slouch at singles, he was more of an album artist.

 

Ron,

I have a much kinder opinion of McCartney's solo albums than yourself. I do agree with your comments on the likes of McLachlan and Gabriel and the record companies milking albums for years.

 

McCartney could also be called adventurous, or perhaps pretentious depending on your point of view, with the releases of The Fireman albums, Liverpool Oratorio, Standing Stone, and Liverpool Sound Collage.

Paul probably would have been better served if he had included songs like "Give Ireland Back to the Irish", "Another Day", "Oh Woman Oh Why", "Goodnight Tonight", "Daytime Nightime Suffering", "Mull of Kintyre", and "Once Upon a Long Ago" on his regular albums.

Paul and the Rolling Stones are guilty of padding their catalogs with too many live releases, IMO. But I can't honestly say that thought has stopped me from buying any of them either.

 

I have never heard or read that "Why Don't We Do It In The Road" was Paul's frustration about performing. The worst I ever heard was that it was Paul's response to John's going off on his own with Yoko to spend the time recording "Revolution 9" for The Beatles.

Another thing I read was that John wished he could have played on it because he liked the track.

I don't know when Paul started having frustrations about performing, but I don't think it was in 1968. That was a pretty busy year for the chaps.

 

John did like "Why Don't We Do It..." There's a bootleg of John from the Get Back sessions singing "Why don't you put it on the toast?"

Paul claims that he and Ringo recorded the song while waiting for George and John to finish up something else. Lewisohn's book mentions that the hectic recording of the White Album would sometimes utilize two or three studios at Abbey Road at the same time.

Since no attempt was made to expand on the track Paul and Ringo made, I would have to think it wasn't that big a deal.

 

Though everyone is welcome to maintain their own opinions, I'm always surprised when comparing the solo Beatles work that sides are drawn per se.

When Ron Stone states his exclusive preference for 'Plastic Ono Band' and 'Imagine', I do wonder what the bad songs are on something like 'Band On The Run', being my choice for McCartney's best solo recording (amongst several very good albums).

I understand if the preference is out of something other than the songs themselves, but I can't believe that "Look At Me" or "It's So Hard" are better than any track on 'Band On The Run'.

That one might approach music less serious than Lennon (or Dylan, for that matter) should not negate the result. an album that is fun to listen to can be as good as those that are more thought provoking.

Now, I think the 'Ringo album is perfection and can be compared well with 'Plastic Ono Band', 'Imagine' or 'Band On The Run'. Albeit, as I suggest, the albums come from different places in the hearts and minds of their creators.

When I said earlier that McCartney had to be emotionally involved in his work to do it some good, you only need to look at his foray into Africa, the dissolution of the first Wings. It's like McCartney has to be hit by a truck emotionally to get serious.

Lennon is the opposite. He's ready to lay it all out there, sometimes before he's thought it all through. Which I think explains why at one time he was considering drilling a hole in his head. Yeah, I know, drugs probably helped that one along, but John was like that.

I mean, everyone should stick to their opinions. But I know I get similar enjoyment from listening to each of The Beatles' solo work. At the same time knowing I have to approach their solo work differently.

 

Methinks Paul is the only one who wanted to continue to tour after 1966. John was the most opposed to it.

But, that Paul felt this frustration IS documented. I don't recall, but I think it's in the Anthology book.