DM's Beatles forums

Solo forums => Paul McCartney => Microscopes => Topic started by: Bobber on October 31, 2011, 03:25:54 PM

Title: Microscope: Band On The Run
Post by: Bobber on October 31, 2011, 03:25:54 PM
Band On The Run
Yeah, we all know about the circumstances in which this album was made. Lagos didn't appear to be the most appropriate place to record an album, certainly not in 1973. Nevertheless, this opening track shows Paul's meanings and development as a songwriter. I even dig Linda's keyboard solo from 1.30. I have always loved the great rhythm guitars in this song and Paul's drumming is steady and good. Still I wonder what Denny Seiwell had made of this. The handclaps are excellent and really add something. Orchestration at around 2.00 is a breakthrough and the acoustic guitars coming in at 2.14 are just wonderful. What can I say? I have listened to this song hundreds of times and it remains a great song till this day. Paul at his best. Band On The Run and Jet are the songs I recognized on the radio as a little Bobber and get me hooked on Paul McCartney. I soon discovered he once was a member of the legendary Beatles.

Jet
Tony Visconti did another great job here with the orchestration, as proved in the opening section. Wonderful brass. Another great song in my humble. Denny's and Linda's backing vocals are spot on all through the song. Great rhythm guitar once again. Love the little piano lick (1.59) followed by the keyboard solo. Simple and effective. Good rocking tune this. The sax solo to finish the song of is just pure genius.

Bluebird
Not one of my favourites on the album, although a great song. I'm just not to fond of the percussion, which gets a bit annoying in the end. The cowbell gets a positive mention tho. Harmonies as good as they can get. Howie Casey's saxophone solo (from 1.54) is magnificent and adds to the whole atmosphere of the song. Is that guitar lick out of tune at 3.00? I could never make up my mind.

Mrs Vanderbilt
Paul's bass makes the song in my opinion. It's great to really hear the strumming on the acoustic guitars and therefore it's great to play the song by yourself. The 'Ho He Ho' refrain is catchy and works great at live shows. Good drumming by Paul. Another great saxophone lick by Howie Casey. The laughter at the end is a bit over the top for me, but I understand something was needed to break through the Ho He Ho pattern.

Let Me Roll It
Paul McCartney doing John Lennon. And probably better. The characteristic lick is reminiscent of John's Cold Turkey and makes the song for a great deal. The song doesn't even need a guitar solo, the gaps are filled with the lick. Why is there some much reverb on Paul's voice? Not nice, but probably typically 1973. The little trick with the drums at the end of the chorus is something for the drummers to discuss. Strange edit at 2.59, a sudden change of sound and atmosphere. A pity the song ends in a fade out.

Mamunia
A lightweight. Great bass work by Paul again. Nice acoustic guitars and ditto harmonies. I always join at the little 'ah's' (who's doing that?) at 1.09 and 1.11. The cross singing from 2.50 and 3.25 onwards is a highlight in this song. Synthesizer at the end is well done by Paul.

No Words
A Denny Laine composition, finished by Paul. Nice orchestration by Tony Visconti. Lead guitar reminds me of George Harrison and therefore it sounds a bit like a George song. A good one tho. Somehow I never really get into the song very well and a fade out at 2.30 makes it a candle going out slowly.

Picasso's Last Words (Drink To Me)
Many people think this is the masterpiece of the album (so I've learned in the past few weeks), but I don't really agree. Paul wanted to make the song consisting of fragments to express Picasso's cubistic style of painting. The brass playing in the second fragment is great tho, but the reprise from Jet is not. Then comes an orchestrated 'Drink To Me' part, which is a bit over the top, and so is the instrumental section that comes after that. The drunken-sounding 'Drink To Me' is, looking at the song complete structure, understandable and so is the French part. It sounds as if Paul is having troubles (or is that Linda in the background) with the high notes in the Drink To Me part. The Ho He Ho ending is too much for me. I've heard enough Ho He Ho's earlier on the album.

Nineteen Hundred And Eighty Five
And what a great finale Paul brings to this great album. Great piano, that comes in a couple of times to sort of restart the song. Great powerful orchestration to finish the song of and a little reprise of Band On The Run at the end. Is that a clarinet or alt sax solo? Maybe the best song on the album.


Not on the UK version of the album, but it was in the US:
Helen Wheels
Simple but great rocker that I really like. Paul has really improved his drumming since his debut solo album. He's got to work on the lead guitar parts tho. They remain not very fluent. Nice how they hammer on at 2.25 tho. I can clearly hear Linda sing 'Hell On Wheels' in the harmonies. There's a little Kansas City (say bye bye) (3.03)


Overall: a great album with a wonderful feel. No bad songs.
Title: Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
Post by: glass onion on October 31, 2011, 05:37:53 PM
all agreed bobber.......i never really got into band on the run until quite recently,and i now realise what a superb album it is.not only because of the circumstances it was made in/under,but really there is no filler on this album,which is remarkable when you think of the album/albums recorded before it.it seemed to all come together for the three wings members,and if i was henry or denny s. i think i would have felt a little miffed.however,they must have had their reasons for quitting.
pauls' drumming is great throughout,he really shows his versatility on this album.the songwriting is absolutely second to none and wings ended up with a fantastic record that lifted the band into the major league again.or at least gave them a massive lift.
Title: Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
Post by: Hombre_de_ningun_lugar on October 31, 2011, 06:16:45 PM
The only Paul's post-Beatles album that I really care about. The lyrics are weak as usual on Paul's solo records, but here the music compensates it. In my opinion, high points are the title track, "Jet", "Let Me Roll It", "Helen Wheels" and "1985". I'm not a fan of the backing vocals here (Linda was not Grace Slick), but it's still an enjoyable record full of hooks. Easily Wings' best album and the one where Paul has more control of the instrumentation (just a coincidence?).
Title: Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
Post by: blmeanie on November 01, 2011, 01:00:15 AM
the way he changes pace in Band on the Run reminds me in a odd way of A Day in the Life.  The song has multiple legs to stand on and having different "sections" is awesome writing.

1985 rocks, Helen Wheels is very cool.  I enjoy all the tracks, probably some out of repetitiveness but nonetheless it holds up well for me.
Title: Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
Post by: tkitna on November 01, 2011, 02:07:50 AM
Old 'Band On The Run'. Everybodys preferred Paul album, or so it seems. Not mine, but its easily one of his best. Theres just a few songs on it that I think are sketchy, but i'll get to that soon. I've been waiting for this review to see where everybody stands.
Title: Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
Post by: KelMar on November 01, 2011, 03:30:41 AM
Quote from: Bobber
I always join at the little 'ah's' (who's doing that?)

It's John, definitely.  ;D
Title: Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
Post by: Ollier on November 01, 2011, 08:56:10 AM
I think we'll all come to a general agreement with this one, in that it's probably about the best record that Paul has been involved with. It's certainly up there anyway.

Band On The Run A very good song. Paul tends to get knocked about poor lyrics and sometimes they are poor, not often in my view, but sometimes. On the past few records his words just seem to be, for the most part, a bit uninvolved. Here every word flows to create a great sense of what the song is about, just read the words, they are brilliant even on their own fabulous images in there. The singing is tops too, particularly how they go into the title with such joy et gusto. Nice guitars on the intro sections and acoustics on the main piece. Orchestral was how Paul once described this on a TV advert...

Jet Great fuzziness on here there is something else interesting going on inside of it too, maybe it's keys or percussion but it underpins it all very well, great voice. One of Paul's most nonsense rockers of them all, it's about a black puppy runt or a black horse apparently. Black something anyway.

Bluebird Kind of dreamy, nice guitar, nice percussion, splendid vocal swell it just makes you want to sing it. Simple but again nice images, it's soft and it's good...

Mrs Vanderbilt Nice acoustics and percussions. Bouncy bass, catchy and not much too it. Maybe the words are a dig at someone or something I don't know. Probably means nothing but its harmless enough, maybe the weakest on this...

Let Me Roll It Great guitar and yeah I can hear Cold Turkey similarity. The words "I can't tell you how I feel..." it's from the heart I'm sure of it and another rolling pun. There’s a can't quite hear it bit in there too it's very good, heavy with it.

Mamunia I like this one, it’s true indeed that “you’ve never felt the rain my friend ‘til you’ve felt it running down your back…” it’s maybe the most philosophical song on this, if that applies at all anyway… Guitars are pretty and when the vocal builds it really makes the song.

No Words When I first heard the album I found this to be the best most obviously single worthy song on it. Great harmonies again, brilliant guitar work. It just has that melody. Well done Denny.

Picasso's Last Words (Drink To Me) This starts slowly and has been the most difficult track to get into on the record for me. It's a set of snips that eventually gets pulled off with aplomb in that McCartney style.

Nineteen Hundred And Eighty Five Great piano, great vocal, rocks, interesting words. Blue chip Macca. Particularly the break with the synths and the ooo's. Builds up and breaks down brilliantly. What more can I say?

Overall it's the best McCartney/Wings record. It's concise, I think it's the easiest record to listen to without skipping tracks it flows very well and there's a link in it too I'm sure. It sounds like it was recorded where it was, if that makes sense, and that helps too.

A great album...

This sort of content is what this place should be about, pity it's being watered down and has been considerably.

Title: Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
Post by: Bobber on November 01, 2011, 11:56:22 AM
The less people Paul works with, the better albums he delivers. That is, he better not does it totally on his own, but with one or two dedicated followers of his fashion.
Title: Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
Post by: Ollier on November 01, 2011, 12:01:21 PM
But then I adore Press To Play...
Title: Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
Post by: Bobber on November 01, 2011, 12:03:55 PM
But then I adore Press To Play...

I guess you're not trying to start a debate here.
Title: Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
Post by: Ollier on November 01, 2011, 12:09:57 PM
Oh no no. I shalt wait my turn to fight the corner of that masterpiece...

"Well the rain exploded with a mighty crash as we fell into the sun..."
Title: Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
Post by: blmeanie on November 01, 2011, 07:56:28 PM
The less people Paul works with, the better albums he delivers. That is, he better not does it totally on his own, but with one or two dedicated followers of his fashion.

I think his collaboration with Elvis (Costello) was very good.  I think people that have their own opinions and ideas are good for him to work with.  I'm guessing he has worked with some "yes" men over the years too.
Title: Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
Post by: tkitna on November 01, 2011, 11:52:27 PM
This sort of content is what this place should be about, pity it's being watered down and has been considerably.

Say again? I dont think anybodys opinion has been censored. I know mine hasent.
Title: Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
Post by: Ollier on November 02, 2011, 12:22:13 AM
That's not what I'm saying Todd.
Title: Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
Post by: Jema on November 02, 2011, 12:31:20 AM
My favorite songs on this album is Band On The Run,Jet and Mamunia.I love how in the beginning of Band On The Run it starts out kind of slow and mellow then it picks up a bit about a little more then a minute in.I love the intro to Jet because I like the feeling I get from it and it's a nice way to start the song off.I've always liked the part when Paul says "Ah matter,want Jet to always love me".I think Mamunia is a very pretty and relaxing song and I really like the guitar part.
Title: Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
Post by: nimrod on November 02, 2011, 01:25:20 AM
Let Me Roll It is good, him and John couldve done a great version (in the Ive Got A Feeling vein)
I wish I could ramble on about how great this album is but as stated before Im a huge fan of Pauls in the Beatles but I absolutely cant stand Wings and Im not really a fan of solo Paul either, I mean I can see that some of the songs have good melodies but theres just something massively twee and overly poppy about Wings   ;sorry

Much prefer solo John and George
Title: Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
Post by: Hombre_de_ningun_lugar on November 02, 2011, 03:44:31 AM
Let Me Roll It is good, him and John couldve done a great version (in the Ive Got A Feeling vein)

Well, John's "Beef Jerky" sounds like a "Let Me Roll It" reprise, doesn't it? It seems that John liked that Paul's song.
Title: Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
Post by: glass onion on November 02, 2011, 02:09:26 PM
i think this could well be wings' finest album,although it's not my favourite wings record.band on the run really is a good album.not too sure about the statement about paul working best on his own,remember from 71-81 time he was working closely with denny laine,whom i don't think was a 'yes man'.i'm not keen on flowers in the dirt (on which he worked with elvis costello)and although i quite like press to play (eric stewart)i realise that the record is not the strongest.i would imagine that with band on the run,denny laine was a big 'sounding board' (as paul may put it?)and had significant input with what happened on the album.i may be wrong,but i like to think denny laine had a bigger part in wings than being a 'yes man.'who knows?maybe one day denny will put out a tasty book on his time with paul.the bass player in my band has met denny and played on the same bill,in sheffield i think.he said denny was such a nice bloke.
Title: Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
Post by: tkitna on November 02, 2011, 02:12:03 PM
Band On The Run - Great song. I tend to get sick of it, but its still a great tune. Like the beginning with the guitar and keyboards. I also like how the beginning feels dire or depressed and then at the 1:19 it starts with the edgier, p*ssed off, theme. The orchestra and guitar sounds huge on the build up to the next stage. Acoustic guitar sounds great too. Pauls does an admiral job on the drums, but its nothing earth shattering. Best part of the song is when sings ‘The rabbits on the run’. Paul knocked this one out of the park.

Jet - Talk about a song I get sick of, this is it. It’s a good rocker though and deserves its place somewhere along the top of Pauls catalog. I have always liked the drumming to this song. I cant keep track of who played on what song, but I’m guessing this was not Paul. Seems a bit out of his league. Horns are cool in this song. Deep sax? Cant tell. I like the background vocals too. Pauls voice is good as usual. Tiny piano part is a must. Keyboard solo is simple, but effective. Good song.

Bluebird - I usually dismiss this song, but after listening to it today, it’s a nice tune. Pauls voice might be the weakest part of the song. The percussion is nice and the backgrounds are great. Sax solo is sweet. All in all, it’s a nice effort. Probably better than I give it credit for.

Mrs. Vanderbilt - This song comes off better than it should. Reminds me a little of ‘Monkberry Moon Delight’ or a silly song like that, but it has such an infectious beat that its really easy to digest. The bass playing is awesome. The drumming is good and this sounds like Pauls playing to me. Might be wrong. Sax is welcomed again. The ‘Ho He Ho’s’ don’t even bother me. I like Lindas background voice here too. Nice song.

Let Me Roll It - Nice blues/rock song here with a savage guitar. Always liked the drums on this one too. Nice groove even though it’s a straight 4/4 with a few tidbits thrown in. Like Pauls voice and the backgrounds. The keyboards are ok, if not a bit much. Lindas voice is welcome again. The song does get tedious with me though after awhile. I thought it was easily a 7 minute song, but when looking it clocks out around the 5 minute mark. Yeah, I get bored with it. Decent song.

Mamunia - Here’s the stinker for me. I never liked this song. Sad too, because Pauls voice really is awesome here and the acoustic guitar and bass sound great. I’m a big Linda voice fan too, but I don’t like it here. Its too much throughout the song. The percussion gets on my nerves. Sorry just not my cup of tea.

No Words - If this isn’t a typical Wings song, I don’t know what is. If you were searching for the definitive Wings sound, look no further. I don’t like the harmonization though. The strings are nice. I don’t know, nothing jumps out at me with this song. It just sounds like a big mess to me.

Helen Wheels - Great rocker. Always liked this one. Great drum shuffle. Pauls voice sounds good although the overall production of the song sucks. Muddy as hell. Love the background vocals when Linda screams too. Guitar sounds great, although the lead parts are weak. Is that Paul playing? Sounds like him to me for some reason and that would explain the lack of taste. Oh well. Great tune.

Picasso’s Last Words (Drink To Me) - Another song that does nothing for me. Surprise. The acoustic guitar sounds good and I like Pauls voice, but not Linda and Dennys backgrounds. The weird drum bars and Jet part kind of aggravate me for some reason. The strings are nice though. I see what Paul was trying to do with the song, being kind of abstract and all, but it doesn’t gel for me. It’s a skipper in my world.

Nineteen Hundred and Eighty Five - Love this song although I’ll admit that it gets a tad monotonous over time. Love the piano and the drumming is good. Pauls voice is good enough although he’s singing with accent. Backgrounds are nice and I love the organ during the breaks. Everything in this song works where it didn’t in some of the others. Really dig the ‘Band On The Run’ fade out at the end. I like this tune and it may very well be the best song on the album. Maybe.


Very, very strong effort from Paul here and after the last album, very much welcomed. No, I take that back. Not just welcomed, but needed. It was the punch in the arm that made people take notice again. The album is in my top 5 for Paul, but I wouldn’t blame anybody for choosing it as his best. Great record.
Title: Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
Post by: tkitna on November 02, 2011, 02:13:40 PM
That's not what I'm saying Todd.

Sorry man. Just disregard. Its just me talking when I shouldnt have been. Peace.

I like 'Press To Play' too.  ha2ha
Title: Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
Post by: Ollier on November 03, 2011, 01:05:47 AM
I like 'Press To Play' too.  ha2ha

Well there may be something we agree on...

Back To The Egg on the other hand...

 ;D

Helen Wheels I like the drums on here, not so fond of the muddy sound nor the voices. I do like that it's about a van and touring in it. Fit's the 'Band On The Run' bit rather well... Sailor Sam and the way she feels...
Title: Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
Post by: tkitna on November 03, 2011, 01:50:09 AM
Helen Wheels I like the drums on here, not so fond of the muddy sound nor the voices. I do like that it's about a van and touring in it. Fit's the 'Band On The Run' bit rather well... Sailor Sam and the way she feels...

Its actually about his and Lindas Land Rover that they used to drive around the countryside in. Sorry, just saying.
Title: Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
Post by: Ollier on November 05, 2011, 01:42:57 AM
Ah well I'm glad it ent on the real version...
Title: Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
Post by: Gary910 on November 10, 2011, 07:48:37 PM
I like 'Band On The Run'. I think it is a very good Paul album. One of his best? That I doubt. I think 'Ram' is better. Then again, I like it all. So I may not be able to offer a objective opinion.
Title: Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
Post by: tkitna on November 10, 2011, 10:01:54 PM
I like 'Band On The Run'. I think it is a very good Paul album. One of his best? That I doubt.

Oh, I think its definately one of his best. Its pretty strong.

Quote
I think 'Ram' is better.

As do I.
Title: Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
Post by: BeatlesForever on November 11, 2011, 03:26:29 AM
Here's one of my MANY favorite Paul songs, enjoy!

Paul McCartney & Wings - Let Me Roll It (2010 Remaster) + Lyrics (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7pE5Emap0Y#ws)
Title: Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
Post by: glass onion on November 12, 2011, 10:53:38 AM
Its actually about his and Lindas Land Rover that they used to drive around the countryside in. Sorry, just saying.
paul still has that land rover to this day.he is interviewed whilst driving it in the wingspan documentary.that thing would've been a piece of sh*t even then in the early 70's,god knows what it drives like now!!like bloody tanks,them things.awful.
Title: Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
Post by: Ollier on November 12, 2011, 11:42:20 PM
Probably drives like hell on wheels.

New microscope please...
Title: Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
Post by: Bobber on November 14, 2011, 10:38:57 PM

New microscope please...

...is coming up. I was a little surprised by Venus And Mars to be honest.
Title: Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
Post by: glass onion on November 15, 2011, 09:34:33 AM
i like venus and mars.i think it's a good little mixture of songs and styles.looking forward to reading some other thoughts on it!! ;D
Title: Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
Post by: tkitna on November 16, 2011, 12:48:17 AM
...is coming up. I was a little surprised by Venus And Mars to be honest.

That was never a favorite of mine, but I havent listened to it for awhile. Maybe i'm missing something. Cant wait for the review.
Title: Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
Post by: Ollier on November 16, 2011, 03:10:56 AM
It's not all that if I recall I mean theres some good things on it but theres also some pretty dross.
Title: Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
Post by: glass onion on November 16, 2011, 09:43:50 AM
It's not all that if I recall I mean theres some good things on it but theres also some pretty dross.
it's a wings album then,isn't it?by the way,going back to band on the run,todd may be able to help me here.does paul play ALL drums on the album or was there a session guy involved,too?i never read anywhere that it was anybody else but macca that drums on the record,but never been too sure.
Title: Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
Post by: tkitna on November 16, 2011, 03:07:05 PM
it's a wings album then,isn't it?by the way,going back to band on the run,todd may be able to help me here.does paul play ALL drums on the album or was there a session guy involved,too?i never read anywhere that it was anybody else but macca that drums on the record,but never been too sure.

This is a good question that I would have to do some homework for. Off the top of my head, I believe Denny played on 'Jet' and that might be it. I think 'Jet' was cut earlier before the trip to Lagos and before Denny bailed on the band. Again, I might be wrong and I would have to look it up. I bet Bobber knows this. If Cor doesnt respond before I head to work tonight, i'll find out when I get there.
Title: Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
Post by: Ovi on December 17, 2011, 11:43:53 AM
Picasso's Last Words (Drink To Me)
Many people think this is the masterpiece of the album (so I've learned in the past few weeks), but I don't really agree.


Is that really true? Wow, I've always considered the song to be the weakest one here.

Regarding the album, it's very good and I really can't find any bad things about it, but for some reason I've always considered "Venus and Mars" to be superior to it. Maybe it's the fact that it impressed me more on the very first listen.

Edit : I also forgot to mention the fact that the "Band On The Run" reprise coming at the end of "Nineteen Hundread and Eighty Five" after that noisy orchestral ending is probably my favourite bit of the whole album. I like it this way, with no other bonus tracks added.
Title: Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
Post by: Bobber on October 03, 2012, 09:41:28 AM
Somehow I find it unbelievable that on a Beatles forum, an album by The Byrds is discussed more than Paul McCartney's finest album.
Title: Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
Post by: Ovi on October 03, 2012, 10:46:26 AM
Somehow I find it unbelievable that on a Beatles forum, an album by The Byrds is discussed more than Paul McCartney's finest album.

Actually, twice more people replied to this thread than to the Byrds microscope. That's gotta count for something. By the way, did you switched to John or are you doing the microscopes simultaneously for each solo beatle?
Title: Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
Post by: Hombre_de_ningun_lugar on October 03, 2012, 06:26:12 PM
Somehow I find it unbelievable that on a Beatles forum, an album by The Byrds is discussed more than Paul McCartney's finest album.

I don't find that so unbelievable because many people in this forum have a wide taste of music and don't stick just to the Beatles and the solo careers of ex-members. Several Byrds' albums are historically much more important than anything Paul did after the Beatles, opening the door for new genres. Actually from a Beatles fan perspective, I think it's richer the discussion that can be done about bands that were contemporaneous to the Fab Four than about the solo careers that hardly broke any new ground. Anyway, I don't mean to put these Microscopes down at all, I think they're very interesting, and I'm having participation on them as well.
Title: Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
Post by: nimrod on October 03, 2012, 11:56:43 PM
Somehow I find it unbelievable that on a Beatles forum, an album by The Byrds is discussed more than Paul McCartney's finest album.

personally I agree with Hombre on this, Ive said before Im not a fan of solo Beatles stuff, just the Beatles.

For me John needed Paul, and Paul needed John
Title: Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
Post by: tkitna on October 04, 2012, 12:58:38 PM
Somehow I find it unbelievable that on a Beatles forum, an album by The Byrds is discussed more than Paul McCartney's finest album.

I've been saying this since the beginning. There's about 10 to 20 posters that get involved in the solo microscope threads (i'm being generous) and then the rest have just seemed to foregone their solo stuff. Its more weird to me then unbelievable. Maybe its an age thing. Who knows.
Title: Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
Post by: Bobber on October 04, 2012, 02:43:02 PM
I don't find that so unbelievable because many people in this forum have a wide taste of music and don't stick just to the Beatles and the solo careers of ex-members. Several Byrds' albums are historically much more important than anything Paul did after the Beatles, opening the door for new genres. Actually from a Beatles fan perspective, I think it's richer the discussion that can be done about bands that were contemporaneous to the Fab Four than about the solo careers that hardly broke any new ground. Anyway, I don't mean to put these Microscopes down at all, I think they're very interesting, and I'm having participation on them as well.

A Hard Days Night Microscope got 37 replies. Revolver 42.

I'm not telling anyone what to discuss and what not. And of course it might be interesting to discuss bands and albums that were and are important. I guess I'm just not in the right mood currently to see those things in the right perspective.
Title: Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
Post by: Kevin on October 04, 2012, 04:09:54 PM
personally I agree with Hombre on this, Ive said before Im not a fan of solo Beatles stuff, just the Beatles.

For me John needed Paul, and Paul needed John

I have thoughts on this.

I don’t think it’s that they needed each other, but that they complimented each other.

I can’t think of another major act that had two fully functioning top-of-their-game singer songwriters operating simultaneously. This is why I think Beatle albums are so unique – you basically get the six best songs by two superior writers and performers. That’s why there’s really no dross, and why Beatle albums are always so interesting. You just don’t get a chance to get sick of any body.

Lets face it, if you take any two contempory Paul or John solo albums, throw in the best two songs George  has written that year, get Ringo to warble along on another and you’re always going to come up with a fairly decent Beatles album.

The big question for me is how did this come about? Is it the million monkeys typing Shakespeare thing? If you have a million rock bands, one of them will eventually produce two top notch writer/performers. Are they that one-in-a-million chance?
Or was there something about The Beatles psyche that allowed this to happen. Was it their super management team, that allowed them the freedom to realise their potentials? Was it because Epstein had such control that no one member could dominate, and because George Martin was so supportive and in tune with their song writing.
Or was it the very way The Beatles (from 62 at least)  were – four individuals with no obvious figurehead, that meant no  one person dominated in the cocoon of Beatle mania?

Personally I suspect the latter – in other bands John and Pauls competiveness would have torn them apart, or meant that one would at times dominate the other (Pink Floyd for instance) or forced one into a secondary role. But because of the tight control exerted by Epstein (another manager may have forced Lennon to the fore to give the band a frontman), because of the support of Martin (another producer may not have been so keen to foster their individual talents), and because of the bubble Beatlemania forced them into (creating that all-for-one  and one-for-all climate)  we have the unique situation of two complimentary but contrasting best-in-the-business writers, singers and performers.
Title: Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
Post by: Ovi on October 04, 2012, 05:16:06 PM
I have thoughts on this.

I don’t think it’s that they needed each other, but that they complimented each other.

I can’t think of another major act that had two fully functioning top-of-their-game singer songwriters operating simultaneously. This is why I think Beatle albums are so unique – you basically get the six best songs by two superior writers and performers. That’s why there’s really no dross, and why Beatle albums are always so interesting. You just don’t get a chance to get sick of any body.

Lets face it, if you take any two contempory Paul or John solo albums, throw in the best two songs George  has written that year, get Ringo to warble along on another and you’re always going to come up with a fairly decent Beatles album.

The big question for me is how did this come about? Is it the million monkeys typing Shakespeare thing? If you have a million rock bands, one of them will eventually produce two top notch writer/performers. Are they that one-in-a-million chance?
Or was there something about The Beatles psyche that allowed this to happen. Was it their super management team, that allowed them the freedom to realise their potentials? Was it because Epstein had such control that no one member could dominate, and because George Martin was so supportive and in tune with their song writing.
Or was it the very way The Beatles (from 62 at least)  were – four individuals with no obvious figurehead, that meant no  one person dominated in the cocoon of Beatle mania?

Personally I suspect the latter – in other bands John and Pauls competiveness would have torn them apart, or meant that one would at times dominate the other (Pink Floyd for instance) or forced one into a secondary role. But because of the tight control exerted by Epstein (another manager may have forced Lennon to the fore to give the band a frontman), because of the support of Martin (another producer may not have been so keen to foster their individual talents), and because of the bubble Beatlemania forced them into (creating that all-for-one  and one-for-all climate)  we have the unique situation of two complimentary but contrasting best-in-the-business writers, singers and performers.


Wow, one of the best posts I've ever read. I fully agree with everything.
Title: Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
Post by: Hombre_de_ningun_lugar on October 04, 2012, 05:49:03 PM
A Hard Days Night Microscope got 37 replies. Revolver 42.

Of course, it would certainly be unbelievable that any other band gets longer discussion than a Beatles' album in this forum. I was refering to the solo careers, they're worth to be discussed, but it doesn't amaze me that they didn't get as much participation.

I'm not telling anyone what to discuss and what not. And of course it might be interesting to discuss bands and albums that were and are important. I guess I'm just not in the right mood currently to see those things in the right perspective.

In the case of Band On The Run I think it deserved much more discussion. Other 70's stuff by Paul is also quite relevant, but many people (including me) are not into his later stuff. I think your Microscopes of early 70's albums by John and George will get a lot of replies.
Title: Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
Post by: Hombre_de_ningun_lugar on October 04, 2012, 06:14:40 PM
I have thoughts on this.

I don’t think it’s that they needed each other, but that they complimented each other.

I can’t think of another major act that had two fully functioning top-of-their-game singer songwriters operating simultaneously. This is why I think Beatle albums are so unique – you basically get the six best songs by two superior writers and performers. That’s why there’s really no dross, and why Beatle albums are always so interesting. You just don’t get a chance to get sick of any body.

Lets face it, if you take any two contempory Paul or John solo albums, throw in the best two songs George  has written that year, get Ringo to warble along on another and you’re always going to come up with a fairly decent Beatles album.

The big question for me is how did this come about? Is it the million monkeys typing Shakespeare thing? If you have a million rock bands, one of them will eventually produce two top notch writer/performers. Are they that one-in-a-million chance?
Or was there something about The Beatles psyche that allowed this to happen. Was it their super management team, that allowed them the freedom to realise their potentials? Was it because Epstein had such control that no one member could dominate, and because George Martin was so supportive and in tune with their song writing.
Or was it the very way The Beatles (from 62 at least)  were – four individuals with no obvious figurehead, that meant no  one person dominated in the cocoon of Beatle mania?

Personally I suspect the latter – in other bands John and Pauls competiveness would have torn them apart, or meant that one would at times dominate the other (Pink Floyd for instance) or forced one into a secondary role. But because of the tight control exerted by Epstein (another manager may have forced Lennon to the fore to give the band a frontman), because of the support of Martin (another producer may not have been so keen to foster their individual talents), and because of the bubble Beatlemania forced them into (creating that all-for-one  and one-for-all climate)  we have the unique situation of two complimentary but contrasting best-in-the-business writers, singers and performers.

Great post. I think the Beatles were more than the sum of the individual parts, there was a special synergy between them. I don't quite agree that selecting the best songs of each member during their solo careers makes a Beatles quality album, because it's the result of individual works. We all know that John and Paul didn't really write many songs together during the Fab Four days, but there was a sane competition that made them do their best effort. For example, Paul wrote many great lyrics with the Beatles, but during his solo career his words were very uninspiring. Many John's songs with the Beatles were recorded to sound innovative and the other members helped with their musical virtuosity, but during his solo career he wasn't very ambitious in terms of sound and music issues. If there's really a 5th Beatle, it is the magic that was present when they were together.
Title: Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
Post by: nimrod on October 05, 2012, 01:31:16 AM
Great post. I think the Beatles were more than the sum of the individual parts, there was a special synergy between them. I don't quite agree that selecting the best songs of each member during their solo careers makes a Beatles quality album, because it's the result of individual works. We all know that John and Paul didn't really write many songs together during the Fab Four days, but there was a sane competition that made them do their best effort. For example, Paul wrote many great lyrics with the Beatles, but during his solo career his words were very uninspiring. Many John's songs with the Beatles were recorded to sound innovative and the other members helped with their musical virtuosity, but during his solo career he wasn't very ambitious in terms of sound and music issues. If there's really a 5th Beatle, it is the magic that was present when they were together.

Quote
Lets face it, if you take any two contempory Paul or John solo albums, throw in the best two songs George  has written that year, get Ringo to warble along on another and you’re always going to come up with a fairly decent Beatles album.

the trouble with solo albums is that John or Paul or George are free to indulge themselves into recording whatever.....and the 'backing musicians' are being told what to play, these backing musicians are so excited to be playing with a Beatle, they'll do anything theyre told.........you could never stick 12 solo tracks together by these 3 and call it a Beatle album, solo albums dont have the input of the others, for example pauls bass line on George's Something annoyed George, if he had done it as a solo musician he would have used somebody like Klaus Vormann to put a basic bass track on it, so IMO the song would have lost something (quite a big something), similarly, on Johns solo stuff, the only decent bass playing was on Double Fantasy when he employed the brilliant Tony Levin, but even then he instructed Levin not to 'overplay'........ fortunately Tony did add some dressing.
Im not a solo Beatle fan mainly because the others have no input into the songs creativity, and they needed each other for competition, I therefore truly believe that they did 'need' each other in order to be truly great and not just average.
Title: Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
Post by: Hombre_de_ningun_lugar on October 05, 2012, 01:51:56 AM
the trouble with solo albums is that John or Paul or George are free to indulge themselves into recording whatever.....and the 'backing musicians' are being told what to play, these backing musicians are so excited to be playing with a Beatle, they'll do anything theyre told.........you could never stick 12 solo tracks together by these 3 and call it a Beatle album, solo albums dont have the input of the others, for example pauls bass line on George's Something annoyed George, if he had done it as a solo musician he would have used somebody like Klaus Vormann to put a basic bass track on it, so IMO the song would have lost something (quite a big something), similarly, on Johns solo stuff, the only decent bass playing was on Double Fantasy when he employed the brilliant Tony Levin, but even then he instructed Levin not to 'overplay'........ fortunately Tony did add some dressing.
Im not a solo Beatle fan mainly because the others have no input into the songs creativity, and they needed each other for competition, I therefore truly believe that they did 'need' each other in order to be truly great and not just average.

You're giving good examples nimrod. I agree.
Title: Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
Post by: nimrod on October 05, 2012, 02:55:11 AM

I can’t think of another major act that had two fully functioning top-of-their-game singer songwriters operating simultaneously. This is why I think Beatle albums are so unique – you basically get the six best songs by two superior writers and performers. That’s why there’s really no dross, and why Beatle albums are always so interesting. You just don’t get a chance to get sick of any body.



there are a few Kevin that were major bands, John Lodge & Justin Hayward (Moody Blues), Gerry Beckley & Dewey Bunnell (America), Roger Hodgson & Rik Davies (Supertramp), Graham Gouldman & Eric Stewart (10CC),  Walter Becker & Donald f**en, (Steely Dan) and of course Jagger & Richards (although I know Keith didnt sing much)...;)
Title: Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
Post by: Hello Goodbye on October 05, 2012, 03:48:24 AM
we have the unique situation of two complimentary but contrasting best-in-the-business writers, singers and performers.


...and they needed each other for competition, I therefore truly believe that they did 'need' each other in order to be truly great and not just average.

I agree, Kevin and Kev.  They had a symbiotic relationship and potentiated each other's talents.  The result was a band that will be legendary forever.
Title: Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
Post by: blmeanie on October 05, 2012, 12:10:43 PM
the trouble with solo albums is that John or Paul or George are free to indulge themselves into recording whatever.....and the 'backing musicians' are being told what to play, these backing musicians are so excited to be playing with a Beatle, they'll do anything theyre told.........you could never stick 12 solo tracks together by these 3 and call it a Beatle album, solo albums dont have the input of the others, for example pauls bass line on George's Something annoyed George, if he had done it as a solo musician he would have used somebody like Klaus Vormann to put a basic bass track on it, so IMO the song would have lost something (quite a big something), similarly, on Johns solo stuff, the only decent bass playing was on Double Fantasy when he employed the brilliant Tony Levin, but even then he instructed Levin not to 'overplay'........ fortunately Tony did add some dressing.
Im not a solo Beatle fan mainly because the others have no input into the songs creativity, and they needed each other for competition, I therefore truly believe that they did 'need' each other in order to be truly great and not just average.

great post, thoughts.

Makes me think ----->  if you assume they still worked together somehow/someway after the breakup (alternate universe), and further assume their songwriting would have gone down the same paths they did but the difference being they had the collaboration (lesser maybe) of the others I wonder what might have been different. 

Some of their great solo songs - would there have been something suggested/added by a former Beatle bandmate that would have changed those songs.  You mention that you believe John's solo works lacked imaginative (my word from reading your post) bass work until Double Fantasy. 

What if his solo catalog had Paul playing bass here and there over the years? 

What songs scream for that kind of addition in your mind? How would a particular song or songs be "improved" ?  Has anyone covered Johns solo songs and added their "improvements" that you've sat back and said, wow, wish John had done that or had Paul/George/Ringo on that song to come up with that or something like that?
Title: Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
Post by: nimrod on October 06, 2012, 02:52:40 AM
Its impossible to speculate of course, but when they became individuals instead of The Beatles they never imo achieved greatness, Paul (whilst continuing to be the hard worker) was free to become more twee and silly, and he didnt have John to tell him his lyrics were 'ordinary' and that Mary Had A Little Lamb & C Moon were bad ideas in the rock driven 70's......then again John didnt have Paul to get him working harder, or pushing him to get his lazy arse into gear and write some good songs under pressure.....so he became the lazy 'John the Nowhere Man' only this time he had Yoko to get up to all kinds of daft projects that his fans didnt understand whilst occasionally shovelling together an album when the record company came calling/demanding some output and $$$$.

George used his backlog of songs written as a Beatle to make a very good album but then sank into his reticent rock star mode and only worked when he wasnt doing something more important like gardening on a grand scale or driving his Ferraris/Lamborghini's with Eric Clapton at the Formula 1 race track...................music to him seemed to be a necessary chore, maybe to pay the mortgage on his various houses and his lavish materialistic lifestyle (which was so out of touch with the teachings of the Hare Krishna temple).

As a whole they were magnificent, but the individual sum of the parts didnt equal the whole.
Title: Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
Post by: blmeanie on May 22, 2014, 12:16:44 AM
Revival of a very old thread.

Looked this one up after listening to Band On The Run in the car tonight.  Felt like meeting up with an old friend I hadn't seen in a while.  Pictures (songs) here or there, but hadn't seen the old friend in ages.

It holds up.  Loved reading the microscopes and the last few posts before this one about "what if".

Title: Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
Post by: tkitna on May 22, 2014, 08:03:02 AM
I agree with you. Its a good one.
Title: Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
Post by: Moogmodule on May 22, 2014, 08:59:00 AM
Revival of a very old thread.

It holds up.  Loved reading the microscopes and the last few posts before this one about "what if".

I think your 'what if' deserves a thread of its own. It's pretty fundamental to our views in why we like the Beatles so much but why so much of the solo work gets a "meh".