That's because you're looking through the lens of pop and not what the albums were intended for. Strawberries Oceans Ships Forest was Youth's attempts to utilize the "Hope of Deliverance" sessions for a remix that could be used in the 1993 pre-show. (Whether it was or not, I can't tell you.) Paul was encouraged by others around him to release the whole thing as an album, and he used 'The Fireman' on 'juggler' records to disconnect it from his pop offerings, much as 'Percy Thrills Thrillington' released Thrillington to skip past what Wings were doing in 1977. This concept would be revisited a decade later for Twin Freaks. Rushes was an electronic symphony that utilizes tape loops and other techniques that came back to him — at the same time he is using computer software to help compose Standing Stone. It's not meant to be parsed into individual tracks; it's meant to be one large ambient sound experience taken as a whole. It wasn't classical, so it didn't go on EMI Classical, and it wasn't pure pop, so (due to Youth's presence), it became a second Fireman album. Electric Arguments is a core McCartney album. Quite frankly, had Paul produced it alone or brought in more musicians, it wouldn't have been a Fireman project but something else. That's why it has songs that can be played live with little worry to adapt it.
I'm listening through what my ears hear, it has nothing to do with pop! There are plenty of McCartney songs I like that aren't so-called pop. The majority of music on those albums just doesn't sound good to me! I have to like it, it has to please my ears, I have to enjoy it, that's my lens and the majority of music on those albums as I shared, in my opinion, couldn't care less what they were intended for, is some of his absolute worse!
Hmm... when I was a child, the end of I Am The Walrus scared me a bit... And I thought Cry Baby Cry had a bit of an ominous undertone of foreboding [bolstered by the longing to "take me back where I came from, can you take me back"] before heading into the downright sinister Revolution 9... and the programming of Goodnight immediately afterwards signaled that the revolution may not have been televised, but Big Brother would surely come around and reassure us that "everything is fine, sleep tight children...." The White Album was definitely their darkest... [IMHO, of course]
When I was discovering The Beatles I was scared by the development of side 3, Helter Skelter and then Long Long Long ... I was especially unnerved by Long Long Long's ending. It didn't help that I had to get up after that and ask the librarian to turn the record around until I could continue. I did enjoy Revolution 9 more, that at least did not scare me as much.
No question, the whole album is dark as a whole...which is why I like some of the various genre lighter fare on it, as it balances album out to me and did when I first heard it in 68. Unlike many comments I see on SHF and other social media, I don’t single out those lighter genre songs and think they bring down the album but instead see them as evening out the album’s mood but keeping it’s great variety.
Yeah, me too! I was listening to the Blue Album on headphones (side two made me a fan for life!) and I was pretty unsettled. That was way before I found out it was Shakespeare.
Being honest I haven't heard much of McCartney's classical material. The little that I have heard sounded nice, but I can't really comment because I've heard so very little. Like McCartney II, III, and the Firemen it's not a direction I'm interested in from McCartney. Funny thing, I absolutely love Eleanor's Dream from the Broadstreet album. Would that be considered classical? I like what McCartney has proven he's good at throughout his career, writing fantastic songs, that's his strength. All the experimental one-man band stuff just doesn't hit me the way his more band-involved material does. McCartney himself has said he likes being in a band, I would guess it's the feedback and bouncing ideas off other musicians, not to mention just the fun of playing with other musicians. It seems to bring the best out of him.
Exactly. I love the album so much just because of it's variety, and lastly everything is balanced. Take away Honey Pie? No way, leave my WA alone, and so on. It's a great journey and the sequencing is great. Back Un The U.S.S.R. with that plane sounds at the beginning, I can think of no more appropriate opening than this one, it's just on it's right place. Up to Good Night, which is not only a stunningly beautiful song, a great album closer, I can also not think of a more appropriate place for it than after Revolution 9. The Beatles and their team have always been outstanding at sequencing. I think without knowing I have learned a lot from them how to build a playlist, and as The Beatles is the most crasy diverse album of their career there is a lot to learn if you listen closely. Similar for McCartney 3. It just fits and flows, from the opener until the end. And having especially Deep Deep Feeling followed by Slidin' ... I cannot count how often I inhaled, took a bow and curtsy of that great transition.
I don't understand what people expect - should he invent new insprations or say that he did not dream Yesterday after all just because people are sick of that story? Plus, keep in mind that there are new generations and casual fans who have not heard it. I have recently listened to a number of podcasts and interviews with the guy who did the RAM remake with Denny Seiwell. He is about 45 or so. He keeps repeating the same stories! Why? Because they are true and to him the most meaningful in regards to each song. Please don't give me that old man comfort stick again. *That* is repetitive.
No, that's because he doesn't enjoy what he's hearing. I hate it when people take the time to come on the internet to tell people they're not listening properly. It doesn't matter one iota what any record was "intended for": what matters is whether the listener enjoys what they hear.
I disagree completely. Paul's old stories have always been the hardest hardest part for any sincere fan. I even realized that as a child in the early 90s and it has gotten worse and worse over the years. Of course he can't re-invent the stories, but people like Bowie or Jagger have done that far better in the past.
Yes, he was. For a rock star in the 90s 50+ was OLD. Paul and his friends pushed the boundaries of how old a rock'n'roller can be. There were very few successful musicians that were older than Paul. The thought of Neil Diamond, Jagger or Clapton still on stage at 75? 80? Unthinkable in 1993 ...
Yes in 89 we went to see the stones and Paul as they were quite old for the industry at that time and likely wouldn’t be performing much again . No one knew that they would be doing what they do for so long
Could it be that the McCartney III-related product we're still expecting is in someway connected to the Rick Rubin documentary? Judging by the name of the documentary I thought that might be the case. By the way: my first post here, though I'm a longtime reader! Really enjoy this forum!
Old by rock / pop star standards then, yes. But the point Joy was making was that he repeats the same old stories because they are "old man comfort stories". Yet he has been telling them for decades. So, IMO, that may be an annoying habit of his, but has nothing to do with his age.
My intention was not to tell the poster they are not listening properly or dismissing their taste — my aim was to point out that it's likely the disappointment is going to look for great songs on a record that's intentionally non-vocal/non-singles constructed. It's kind of like loving musicals, going to Broadway or the West End, and then complaining that the play you went to didn't have any songs you like because it's a drama. (Yes, I've actually had someone tell me that when touring with a group.) Or going into a McCartney album that Ringo's on hoping to have a duet… or picking a Ringo track because Paul is on it, and wondering where he is vocally. If you are going in without a pre-set frame, you might have a different appreciation for the intention and, at the same time, you can still dislike it. Personally, I dislike Strawberries Oceans Ships Forest. I adore Rushes. And I think Electric Arguments isn't that great an LP either – the live version of "Highway" shows it to be flat compared to most of his other pieces ("Save Us" has a better octave/tempo change in the chorus). Similarly, I can appreciate the intention on Ecce Cor Meum, but not coming from a tradition of choral pieces I tend to dislike them; Working Classical, on the other hand, is absolutely beautiful. To each their own.
After 41 years of fandom, I wake up today to find out I'm not actually a "sincere fan"! Welp, guess I'll start listening to Buckethead instead.
15's a good start for his catalogue, but since my conversion to Bucketheadism ten minutes ago, I managed to place an eBay order for 316 of 317 of his studio albums. My new-found fandom is really taking off! Shame about the son named 'James' though... I'll have to to down to the registrar and get that changed to 'Buckethead'.
Understood. But your examples don't quite work. To take your analogies to a stupid conclusion, I could argue that I was really disappointed with the last Ed Sheeran album because it wasn't recorded by Kate Bush. That sidesteps the fact that it isn't really about whether I expected it to be recorded by Kate Bush, it's about the fact that I don't like Ed Sheeran's music. If I did, I would come away thinking "well, it might not have been Kate Bush, but I still liked it". Returning to The Fireman albums, the issue isn't so much what anyone expects of them, but simply whether the listener actually enjoyed what he/she heard. Not wanting to talk for Maccafan but it's entirely possible that, despite these albums being "non-vocal/non-singles constructed", he still might still have enjoyed them. So the point remains: it isn't about one's preconceptions, it's purely about whether one enjoys what one hears or not. Which is why, I'm afraid, I get annoyed when I read comments like yours. Regardless of intent, it smacks of musical snobbery and is patronising. I'm sorry to pick on you. I don't intend a fight with you. You're just the most recent person to do and I just felt the need to call it out. Nothing personal and my respect for your knowledge and passion remains intact.
