DM's Beatles forums

Solo forums => Paul McCartney => Microscopes => Topic started by: Bobber on August 10, 2011, 03:19:06 PM

Title: Microscope: McCartney
Post by: Bobber on August 10, 2011, 03:19:06 PM
Soooo, here we go. The microscope put on Pauls debut album. Remember it's my opinion and I'm open for a great debate (no I'm not ;D )

The Lovely Linda
Paul starts off his debut album with this little ditty, as if he was letting us know that Linda was his new partner under all circumstances. Not much of a song. Strange gliss on 0.05, because he doesn’t seem to make a chord change there. Is that crying or laughing in the end (at 0.41). I would understand both: it’s just a thing Paul writes in about 0.47 seconds. It wouldn’t surprise me if this would be his first attempt at the song. Is he tapping on a suitcase for the rhythm? A forgettable thing and we got the point about the new relationship.

That Would Be Something
Not much of a song as well. In fact it’s just two parts (1: That would be something. That really would be something. That would be something. 2: Meet you in the falling rain). Still Paul manages to make the song 2.37 minutes. Bass is simple but effective. The Western-style guitar is nice in the beginning, but drags on and on. The sudden coming of the rhythm (a little cymbal and that suitcase thing again) on 0.48 is nice. I like it when it’s coming when you least expect it. After 1.15 the song is in fact over. Not much more than a demo of a song that would never be. Nevertheless, Paul dusted it off for his unplugged cd in 1991.

Valentine Day
What’s this supposed to be? Rhythm guitar and the suitcasedrum again at the beginning, which is way too long anyway. It doesn’t seem to go anywhere. Leadguitar comes in at 0.22 seconds and sounds awful. Bass plods along. Paul is freaking out on the drums and that’s about it. Any amateur band has a recording jam like this on the shelf. Obviously played ad lib to test his recording machine.

Every Night
Finally a song that does make any sense on the album. Why didn’t Paul pay attention to all of his songs on this album? Besides this song, there’s just a handful of songs that are recorded with some attention and love. Opening with promises of a good song. Paul starts singing at 0.10 and his rhythm guitar brings in the tension. Nice. Decent drumming and no overwhelming bass, but pleasant enough. Is that a double tracked voice on ‘Resting my mind’ at 1.29? Paul forgets to add another verse or bridge. Reason why the song is too short to come to full bloom. Also played at the unplugged session in 1991.

Hot As Sun/Glasses
I didn’t think much of this instrumental at first, until I found myself whistling along with Hot As Sun. The organ part in the bridge sucks (from 0.41), the rhythm part gets too simplistic here. The transition to Glasses with the organ coming in at 1.21 is hopeless. This is two parts that doesn’t mix together at all. What’s it about? Just a chance for wordplay? Glasses sound like a rejected part of Blue Jay Way. In the end Glasses is segued into a snippet of an unreleased song called Suicide. Why? It doesn’t make sense to my ears. Suicide was also performed during the Let It Be sessions and seemed to have been offered to Frank Sinatra. He rejected it.
Funny to know that Hot As Sun used to be a Quarrymen song and was also played during the Let It Be sessions. Tim Rice put words to the song, which was later recorded by Elaine Page amongst others. Page claimed that McCartney had written the song especially for her. Yeah, right, in 1958.

Junk
This song was already written while The Beatles were in India, in the early spring of 1968. It was even part of the Esher recordings in late May of that year and intended to be one of the songs of the White Album. This version was later put on Anthology 3. Paul gave it another try during the Let It Be sessions, but again rejected. I can see why. The song has a nice melody, but it almost puts me to sleep. Pauls acoustic guitar sounds great and so does his voice. He’s not laughing. The drums are not adding too much. The melody played on the xylophone from 1.03 onwards is a nice touch in the beginning, but adds nothing when Paul goes into the chorus. He realises that as well obviously, for he suddenly stops. Linda’s harmonies are quite vague here and she seems to go out of tune. It looks like this song, although almost two years old, was not finished. Paul seems to be improvising an ending. Not a song I would put on my ‘best of Paul McCartney’ collection.

Man We Was Lonely
I have always enjoyed this song. A typical Paul McCartney singalong. Although written and recorded in a single day, it sounds like one of the songs that got more attention. The song is like a prediction of things to come in the near future. Linda’s harmonies are alright during the chorus. Her reflecting during the verse tho (at 0.55 ‘alone’) is awful. Is that an edit at 0.59, or is Paul just looking for the right chord? Bass is once again plain simple but effective as ever. The steelguitar sounding solo (1.37) is great. It goes on into the verse and chorus after that. Is that another bad edit at 2.27?

Oo You
Great lick. His remark ‘More Guitar’ at 0.07 makes sense. Nice use of the cowbell and tambourine. The electric guitars doesn’t sound nice to my ears, like on almost the complete album. Typical solo’s like the one in Another Girl for example. Characteristically McCartney. Guitar mistake at 1.02. Wonderful cowbell at 1.04. ‘Sing like a blackbird’ at 1.18. A little Beatle in here. Paul sings his heart out in somewhat silly lyrics. Great song with a sudden end.

Momma Miss America
Rock-n-roll springtime, take 1. There’s the original title of this song. Momma Miss America has always intrigued me, as I think it starts out as a really interesting and exciting piece of music. But as it goes on, there’s hardly any development. Maybe Paul should have put some lyrics in here. His drumming is not of a high standard here. The edit into more or less another song after almost two minutes is pretty obvious. Part two doesn’t make the song any better. Paul is just improvising here. Bass is not constructive at all. Some random rhythm and lead guitar. Drums still sound messy with breaks here and there. At 3.11 the song sounds more composed. Still happy it’s over after four minutes.

Teddy Boy
A lot of Beatlesfans regard this song as one of Pauls that should’ve been on one of the Beatles albums, especially Let It Be. Most probably John’s dislike of the song killed it then, but Paul revived it for his debut album. A pity in my opinion, as I really hate this song. The guitar chords are nice enough tho and Pauls bass shows a nice line as well. Linda’s harmonies are dreadful. Nothing more to add really.

Singalong Junk
Originally take one of Junk, on which Paul added mellotron and percussion in an overdub. Somehow this version sounds more complete than Junk and it almost sounds as a soundtrack for a film. I prefer this version. The piano gives the song a nice touch here.

Maybe I’m Amazed
A lot of people call this song overrated. It really isn’t, for it’s a great song. It’s pretty obvious that this song was not recorded in a simple way, for it features three guitars, piano, bass guitar, drums and several vocal overdubs by Paul and Linda. Paul’s piano and vocal are superb and got great dynamics. The double guitarsolo is absolutely brilliant tho simple. Well done. I believe Ringo would have made more of the drum part. The organ stabbing at the end is great.
The song got a lot of airplay at the time it was released, but wasn’t released as a single. A live version was released as a single in 1976 with the release of Wings Over America. Paul must have felt the potential of the song tho, as a promotional film was made in 1970 with photos Linda had taken. It’s here: Wings/Paul McCartney - Maybe I'm Amazed (HQ) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cm2YyVZBL8U#ws)

Kreen-Akrore
Made to get the feeling of the hunt of the Kreen-Akrore tribe from Brazil. Among the instruments used: guitar case and bow and arrow. If I ever gonna make a documentary on the Kreen-Akrore Indians, I will use this song. Until then, it’s a certain skip.

Overall
Nice enough to play every now and then, with a skip here and there. Still enjoyable songs like Every Night, Man We Was Lonely, Oo You and Maybe I’m Amazed. The album shows Paul’s open for experiment and he will get my credits for that.
Title: Re: Microscope: McCartney
Post by: tkitna on August 10, 2011, 03:34:53 PM
Great review Cor. I broke this out today and gave it one listen taking my son to band camp this morning. I'm going to give it a couple more on the way to work this evening. I'll warn you already that my thoughts on this album arent going to be kind. After reading your review Bobber, i've already seen a few things I dont agree with, but we're on the same page for the most part.

I cant believe Paul actually promoted this thing at the time. More to come later.
Title: Re: Microscope: McCartney
Post by: Bobber on August 10, 2011, 03:55:09 PM
It's great to disagree. lol.

All in all, it's not much more than a bunch of demo's, with some extra work here and there. But some come out nice. Others don't.
Title: Re: Microscope: McCartney
Post by: KeepUnderCover on August 10, 2011, 04:43:29 PM
Great review, although I disagree with a lot of it.

I personally love Macca I, but I know others don't.
Title: Re: Microscope: McCartney
Post by: blmeanie on August 10, 2011, 04:48:13 PM
Quote
If I ever gonna make a documentary on the Kreen-Akrore Indians, I will use this song. Until then, it’s a certain skip.

love this line
Title: Re: Microscope: McCartney
Post by: Bobber on August 10, 2011, 05:38:13 PM
Great review, although I disagree with a lot of it.

There's already two disagreements. lol. Todd thinks it's worse than I do, you think it's better. I'm really looking forward to your debate.
Title: Re: Microscope: McCartney
Post by: tkitna on August 11, 2011, 03:34:15 AM
Ok, I listened to this a couple more times on the way to work and here's what i've come up with.

The Lovely Linda - Simple short tune thats sappy and sugar coated, but I like it. Its unfinished and maybe just a snicket of something he had going, but i'd be interested to hear a middle part and even a completed version.

That Would Be Something - A monotonous tune that repeats the same thing through the entire song. I want to cry everytime I hear him sing the drum parts during a few of the bars. I hate how he sings off time with short delays too. Horrible. Just an awful song and its one of the longest on the album.

Valentine Day - If Pauls intentions were to record the worst sounding drums ever, he succeeded. Seriously, they sound like they came from a Cracker Jack box. Embarrassing. The only thing that might be worse is his playing. Theres just nothing good about this. The guitars and everything sound like crap and he sent this out to the public. Horrendous.

Every Night - I like this tune (maybe its due to the shock from listening to Valentine Day). You can tell he at least tried here and it shows. I like the melody and the guitar sound. One of the better songs on the album.

Hot As Sun/Glasses - A cross between country, spanish music, and sh*t. The guitar annoys me and the organ in the middle sounds silly. The later part of the song switches to Glasses I guess. It sucks. Its some short piece of mellow music that doesnt belong anywhere, yet on the end of 'HAS'. This also sucks.

Junk - I like this song (although Singalong Junk is better). Its interesting, mellow, and another song that Paul took some time with. Reminds me of a very slow waltz. I watched a movie a few years back that had this song in it, but I cant remember what it was for the life of me. It fit the theme of the movie well too. A chick flick for sure. Good song and one of the best on this album.

Man We Was Lonely - Another boring song that plods along. Not a fan of the harmonization during the chorus. Pauls voice sounds decent by itself though. Electric guitar sounds like a cow crying. Hate it.

Oo You - This is a blues type slow jammer. The guitar sounds ok, but nothing else does. The drums are just terrible sounding again. Cowbell annoys. Its just boring. Theres no other way to explain it. A great guitar solo might have saved it, but we got nothing. A song anybody could have done.

Momma Miss America - I cringe from the first hit of the drum. Just awful sounding and the playing sucks too. Seriously, the drums kill this song. Sounds like a beginner playing on his set for maybe the 4th time. Piano's ok though and the guitar solo's decent in the middle, but the song is a sorry excuse for anything decent.

Teddy Boy - Laugh all you want, but I like this song. Lindas background vocals win it over for me during the chorus. Sad but true. I realize the song sounds like something sung to a child, but its a guilty pleasure.

Singalong Junk - The same as Junk except theres Piano and some drums and maybe an organ added without the singing. I prefer this version. Its a little deeper and a bit fuller sounding in my opinion.

Maybe I'm Amazed - This song doesnt even belong on this album. Its too good for it. Seriously, everything about this song is better than everything else combined on the rest of the album. The production is a thousand times better as is the playing. Paul took some care with this as he knew he had a good one. I want to comment on the drumming. It's unconventional and I like it. I dig how Paul uses the toms. Sometimes he even ends a few bars with the toms instead of a cymbal crash. He also uses dynamic on the cymbals and so forth. Very well done song on that standpoint. Guitar solo is nice too. Great, great song that saves the album from being utter crap.

Kreen-Akrore - Worst song on the album. Bunch of percussion with some electric guitar during breaks. Terrible and hard to even listen to.


So there we have it Cor. I'll reread your review and see where we differ. All in all, this is definate bottom sludge in Pauls solo efforts. I cant believe or understand how people rate this highly. 90% of this album is the equivalent of a high school garage band during practice except the high school band sounds better.






Title: Re: Microscope: McCartney
Post by: tkitna on August 11, 2011, 03:47:40 AM
I need to add a couple other things that I forgot to mention earlier.

I realize that i'm not a fan of Pauls drumming. Just figured that out today. He's not that good. He experiments with fills and adds things that arent tasteful (especially the hi hat sometimes). I do those things too sometimes when I play or practice and cringe when it happens, but I dont leave them on albums for millions of people to hear. Why dont people tell him that it sounds bad? Weird. I notice some of this critique with Flaming Pie and Chaos too. it is what it is.

Also, this album is short (thank God). I think its only about 20 minutes long or somewhere in that realm.

Lastly, I dont know if I take the album seriously. I dont feel Paul was trying very hard. Almost as if he was just messing around and recorded it for the hell of it. I'm just confused why he promoted and offered it up to the public. I'm more confused as to why we bought it.
Title: Re: Microscope: McCartney
Post by: nimrod on August 11, 2011, 04:57:26 AM
McCartney 1 for me is his best album post Beatles.........I Know I Know, its like a demo and has a DIY feel (you can buy a copy in Hardware House  ha2ha)
But for me this album has just something about it, an unknown qaulity, an x-factor, that his other, bigger albums doesnt, maybe its because I feel he was still a Beatle ? who knows, as Ive said many times on here Im not a fan of their solo careers (or Wings) with the odd exception like this..

I love some of the melodies on here, Hot As Sun, Valentines day, and I disagree hugely with Cor, both versions of Junk are sublime  ;D

Every Night is a song I always wish Id written as its very easy for me to sing (unlike Blackbird), another great song is Ohh You with a great lick and beat, but the crowning glory is Maybe Im Amazed, for me one of the best songs in Rock, 10/10 absolutely superb.
I love all the guitar sounds-tones on this album, they are vintage, warm and Im presuming from his Casino ?

Im in a minority with this viewpoint no doubt, but for me a classic.
Title: Re: Microscope: McCartney
Post by: tkitna on August 11, 2011, 06:24:27 AM
Teddy Boy
A lot of Beatlesfans regard this song as one of Pauls that should’ve been on one of the Beatles albums, especially Let It Be. Most probably John’s dislike of the song killed it then, but Paul revived it for his debut album. A pity in my opinion, as I really hate this song. The guitar chords are nice enough tho and Pauls bass shows a nice line as well. Linda’s harmonies are dreadful. Nothing more to add really.


Quote
Teddy Boy - Laugh all you want, but I like this song. Lindas background vocals win it over for me during the chorus. Sad but true. I realize the song sounds like something sung to a child, but its a guilty pleasure.


We we're close on this one. (http://d26ya5yqg8yyvs.cloudfront.net/lol8.gif)


Title: Re: Microscope: McCartney
Post by: tkitna on August 11, 2011, 06:31:11 AM
Ive said many times on here Im not a fan of their solo careers (or Wings) with the odd exception like this..

You've probably explained this before, but why is this? There's just a lot of material out there for people to enjoy (especially a Beatle fan). Just curious.
Title: Re: Microscope: McCartney
Post by: nimrod on August 11, 2011, 07:08:06 AM
You've probably explained this before, but why is this? There's just a lot of material out there for people to enjoy (especially a Beatle fan). Just curious.

in the case of John, poor songwriting....I dont know, lazyness ? lack of interest ? Yoko ? missing Pauls input ?, missing George Martin ? his best album IMO is Imagine but even that has about 3 great tracks only;

Imagine
Jealous Guy
Oh My Love

The rest to me sound like 12 bars (Crippled Inside) or poor songs like Oh Yoko, How Do Ya Sleep etc, the other albums its less IMO, like I really dig No 9 Dream and Out Of The Blue, God, Im Losing You but the rest are pretty poor offerings, George = All Things Must Pass mostly pretty boring for me medium to slow plodders, Pauls Wings way too twee and poppy for a serious Rock fan in the 70's (I was into Yes/Van Der Graf/Tull/Led Zepp/Purple by this time) so I never dug Wings and his solo albums (when I heard Mary had A Little Lamb and Cmoon I felt like puking  ;D.......) since for me offer nothing compared to the likes of Hey Jude, Let It Be, Fool On The Pill, Lady Madonna etc etc..

eg an artist who grew........Peter Gabriel left Genesis and made some amazing albums that were very innovative and high quality, he is revered as a serious artist with his explorations into rhythms and modal melodies almost creating the world music genre......I would have loved Paul with his mega talent to do something like that instead of the puppy love songs he concentrated on.
I think there are things on the Fireman albums that are more artistic and creative than Band On The Run or Press To Play, as for Ringo, I would never buy a Ringo album end off.

No, Im a massive Beatle fan, loved em totally, but as solo artists, forget it.  ;sorry
Title: Re: Microscope: McCartney
Post by: Bobber on August 11, 2011, 08:20:05 AM
We we're close on this one. ([url]http://d26ya5yqg8yyvs.cloudfront.net/lol8.gif[/url])


ha2ha

In the end, we didn't disagree all that much. I was a bit more diplomatic. lol
Title: Re: Microscope: McCartney
Post by: tkitna on August 11, 2011, 08:31:29 AM
eg an artist who grew........Peter Gabriel left Genesis and made some amazing albums that were very innovative and high quality, he is revered as a serious artist with his explorations into rhythms and modal melodies almost creating the world music genre......I would have loved Paul with his mega talent to do something like that instead of the puppy love songs he concentrated on.

No money in it. What I mean by that is that the music population would rather buy McCartney albums than Peter Gabriel albums. Its more accessible and easier to digest. Pauls isnt going to bite the hand that feeds him. He strays a little, but always comes back to what he knows. I'm kind of glad Paul didnt jump ship and go off on some crazy tangent like Gabriel, David Byrnes, or Paul simon did.

Quote
I think there are things on the Fireman albums that are more artistic and creative than Band On The Run or Press To Play,

I cant stand any of the Fireman albums. 

Quote
as for Ringo, I would never buy a Ringo album end off.

Your missing out in my opinion. He had a great run from 'Time Takes Time' through 'Choose Love'. I'd even rank 'Ringo Rama' in my top 5 solo efforts of any of the Beatles.

Quote
No, Im a massive Beatle fan, loved em totally, but as solo artists, forget it.  ;sorry

No need to apologize. Thats perfectly ok. We are all different.
Title: Re: Microscope: McCartney
Post by: Hombre_de_ningun_lugar on August 14, 2011, 04:41:25 AM
No, Im a massive Beatle fan, loved em totally, but as solo artists, forget it.  ;sorry

I feel like you nimrod, there are few solo Beatles albums that I really like. I discovered that I'm not a fan of names, but a fan of a period of time for music. I love the 60's and the Beatles is the most iconic band of that era. I think that if a Beatles fan cares more about the music than the names, then he/she would find better records in other 60's bands than in solo albums.
Title: Re: Microscope: McCartney
Post by: Bobber on August 14, 2011, 08:16:42 AM
It's good to know there's a lot of support for this massive project.
Title: Re: Microscope: McCartney
Post by: tkitna on August 14, 2011, 09:26:18 AM
I feel like you nimrod, there are few solo Beatles albums that I really like. I discovered that I'm not a fan of names, but a fan of a period of time for music. I love the 60's and the Beatles is the most iconic band of that era.

I'm a fan of 60's music too, but I dont let that deter me from enjoying good music from the 70's, 80's,etc.

Quote
I think that if a Beatles fan cares more about the music than the names, then he/she would find better records in other 60's bands than in solo albums.

This works both ways too. I think if people would just listen to some of the solo albums and not expect a Beatles record, they would come out of it with a more enjoyable experience. I'm one of those rare people that find a lot of the solo efforts more interesting than some of the actual Beatle albums. To take it a step further, besides Revolver which was surpassed by The Pretty Things 'SF Sorrow' as my favorite album, not many Beatle albums would be mentioned on my top 20 or so favorites list.

Also, to touch point with your statement that people are blinded or automatically like a solo effort just because there's a Beatles name on it, thats definately not the case for me. As you can tell by the review in this thread, I try to be brutally honest with how I feel about music.
Title: Re: Microscope: McCartney
Post by: nimrod on August 14, 2011, 10:14:07 AM
I think a lot of it is with me that I like a band effort, where individuals contribute to some extent , and share songwriting, maybe singing, The beatles had 3 songwriters and 4 singers so each album gives you a big variety of singers, types of songs etc but a solo album just gives you 1 singer 1 songwriter and some session guys who are really just yes men and dont contribute much to the artistic content of the music.

The Moody Blues had 4 singers & 4 songwriters, my favourite of which were Mike Pinder followed by Justin Hayward, I bought both their solo albums expecting to really like them but the albums are a let down with humdrum bass & drums and 1 vocalist the whole way through and obviously a similar style of song right through.......I guess Im not a fan of solo albums.
Title: Re: Microscope: McCartney
Post by: Mr Mustard on August 14, 2011, 02:04:52 PM
I think a lot of it is with me that I like a band effort, where individuals contribute to some extent , and share songwriting, maybe singing, The beatles had 3 songwriters and 4 singers so each album gives you a big variety of singers, types of songs etc but a solo album just gives you 1 singer 1 songwriter and some session guys who are really just yes men and dont contribute much to the artistic content of the music.

The Moody Blues had 4 singers & 4 songwriters, my favourite of which were Mike Pinder followed by Justin Hayward, I bought both their solo albums expecting to really like them but the albums are a let down with humdrum bass & drums and 1 vocalist the whole way through and obviously a similar style of song right through.......I guess Im not a fan of solo albums.

All the more fascinating then that you preferred the very solo efforts that resulted in "McCartney" over, say, the communal input (even involving an ex member of your beloved Moody Blues) which gave us "Wings At The Speed Of Sound".... very much a group effort with shared vocal and songwriting contributions.
Title: Re: Microscope: McCartney
Post by: Hombre_de_ningun_lugar on August 14, 2011, 02:15:50 PM
I'm a fan of 60's music too, but I dont let that deter me from enjoying good music from the 70's, 80's,etc.

That's fine, I'm quite narrow minded when it's about music, the only music I listen from the 70's is from 60's artists that continued recording in that decade, and hate almost anything done in the 80's by anybody.

Quote
This works both ways too. I think if people would just listen to some of the solo albums and not expect a Beatles record, they would come out of it with a more enjoyable experience. I'm one of those rare people that find a lot of the solo efforts more interesting than some of the actual Beatle albums. To take it a step further, besides Revolver which was surpassed by The Pretty Things 'SF Sorrow' as my favorite album, not many Beatle albums would be mentioned on my top 20 or so favorites list.

Maybe you just got tired of the Beatles for listening to them so many times, and find different records as better because they're fresher to your ears. But you know yourself better than me! ;D

Quote
Also, to touch point with your statement that people are blinded or automatically like a solo effort just because there's a Beatles name on it, thats definately not the case for me. As you can tell by the review in this thread, I try to be brutally honest with how I feel about music.

I was not talking about you or anybody in particular. I've read you and know you listen to a lot of music apart from the Beatles and solo albums. The point is the way how each one inverts time on listening to music. In my opinion the other music that can be compared to the Beatles in terms of quality, innovation and sound is that from other 60's bands, just because they had the advantage of being contemporaneous.
Title: Re: Microscope: McCartney
Post by: Hombre_de_ningun_lugar on August 14, 2011, 02:21:50 PM
I think a lot of it is with me that I like a band effort, where individuals contribute to some extent , and share songwriting, maybe singing, The beatles had 3 songwriters and 4 singers so each album gives you a big variety of singers, types of songs etc but a solo album just gives you 1 singer 1 songwriter and some session guys who are really just yes men and dont contribute much to the artistic content of the music.

Yeah, I also pay more attention to bands than to solo artists, for the same reason you said, the synergy of different members.
Title: Re: Microscope: McCartney
Post by: Hombre_de_ningun_lugar on August 14, 2011, 02:25:32 PM
All the more fascinating then that you preferred the very solo efforts that resulted in "McCartney" over, say, the communal input (even involving an ex member of your beloved Moody Blues) which gave us "Wings At The Speed Of Sound".... very much a group effort with shared vocal and songwriting contributions.

I think that Wings At The Speed Of Sound actually proves that Wings was basically McCartney solo, since I find it as one of the weakest albums from the "band".
Title: Re: Microscope: McCartney
Post by: Mr Mustard on August 14, 2011, 05:45:06 PM
I've never been a big fan of this album but there are positive points. Brevity for a start - the whole set only runs to about 35 minutes so it never gets stuck in a boring groove for too long. And there are undoubtedly some nice harmonies on there. But as I said on another thread, there is "DIY" and then there's "Amateur" and this album always strays too close to the latter for my liking. I can appreciate why nimrod likes it, him being a fan of "Let It Be"... in my opinion the same scrappy, unfinished, half hearted sort of bittiness is what lets both albums down - a kind of doodling mess around with warm ups and outtakes. The only time this works is when such jottings are invisibly stitched together and lovingly polished (e.g. side two of "Abbey Road"). Left in this sort of disjointed state the whole thing just sounds down home lazy to me.

The Lovely Linda is a prime example of an engaging little ditty that goes nowhere then fizzles out. I think it's laughter at the end. It would have been nice if this had been fleshed out into a more meaty number (sorry Paul & Linda - couldn't resist that  :P) instead it sets the dilettantish tone for the rest of the album.

That Would Be Something - monotonous, repetitive - Paul locked in his own little groove. Inoffensive but rather boring.

Valentine Day - please bear in mind that I am NOT a musician, so wouldn't dream of trying to dissect or criticise the technical aspects of musicianship. You will understand then, that for an instrumental to do anything for me it has to grab my ears with a catchy riff or an appealing sound. This doesn't. self indulgent, forgettable doodling is all I hear I'm afraid. Could be "good" for all I know? Sorry - boresville.

Every Night Aahh - now we're talking - a proper song at last! and not half bad either. Good melody and the lyrics give some insight as to the way Paul feels rather lost and rudderless without his three fellow fabs beside him. What's the point? Linda, that's what! A nice track - I would have liked more of the album to follow in this vein.

Hot As Sun / Glasses -  more pointless instrumentation.... pure filler, though the abominable racket that is "Glasses" actually makes the very pedestrian "Hot As Sun" sound half decent.

Junk - possibly the album's highlight for me. A truly beautiful melody and Paul's delicate vocal is superb. Sadly it suffers from the mood which prevails throughout "McCartney" by dwindling away to a half hearted, improvised conclusion. But a lovely meandering little song.

Man We Was Lonely was nominated by no less a giant than the mighty Johnny Cash as just about the most "country" thing he'd ever heard. It's not a bad number to be fair, notwithstanding Linda's dodgy backing vocal and Paul adopting one of those slightly irksome singing voices ( a la "She's A Woman") from his own vocal repertoire. Still it encapsulates the stompalong hoe-down mood of the album and I must confess to rather liking that sloppy steel guitar sound which fits right in with the C&W theme.

Oo You more improvised jamming. Not bad (I like the guitar and Paul's vocal is OK) but once again, not properly thought through with an abrupt ending as though he'd got bored and abandoned the track on a whim.

Momma Miss America like "McCartney II", "McCartney" is cursed with too many instrumentals. Forgiveable to some extent - Paul wanted to indulge himself and fiddle around trying out his studio amongst the hay bales and the sheep sh*t. Did he have to drag us along for the tractor ride though? Forgettable straw padding which I could comfortably do without.

Teddy Boy I don't mind this one although I can see why John reportedly vetoed it as a Beatles release. Twee, lightweight, almost timid. But quite catchy and appealing in its own way and I think tkitna summed it up perfectly. A guilty pleasure for me too and undoubtedly elevated by Linda's backing vocal.

Singalong Junk as I said earlier, it really is a beautiful melody. But the extra clout this (yet again instrumental) version carries is outweighed by Paul's sublime freewheeling butterfly vocal on "Junk" which therefore eclipses this as the better version for me.

Maybe I'm Amazed - yes, the most "complete" fully-formed song on the album, and it therefore stands out amidst most of the tracks rubbing shoulders with it. But if it had surfaced on "Ram" I still say it would have been no more than average. As it is, it's a nice song - good vocals and lyrics and I like the guitar though I've never cared for that ominously escalating piano which I nevertheless appreciate is part of its magic to some people. A dear friend of mine, a Beatles fan who particularly loves Macca, cites this as her all time favourite song by anyone, ever. To me it's another "Yesterday" - one of the most overrated songs Paul ever gave us. That's not to say I dislike it, it's a nice number.

Kreen Akrore by contrast is absolutely terrible. Dreadful. Garbage.... or perhaps "Absolute Junk" which would have made a better title  ;)

Overall, I cut Paul a bit of slack seeing as how he was at a vulnerable low ebb and, seen (wrongly) by the public as the man who walked out on his three bandmates and with the other ex-Beatles seemingly aligned against him, was very much on the defensive back in 1970.

But he was and is capable of so much better.


Title: Re: Microscope: McCartney
Post by: nimrod on August 15, 2011, 02:34:49 AM
All the more fascinating then that you preferred the very solo efforts that resulted in "McCartney" over, say, the communal input (even involving an ex member of your beloved Moody Blues) which gave us "Wings At The Speed Of Sound".... very much a group effort with shared vocal and songwriting contributions.

there are some solo albums I like in particular some Neil Young and Peter Gabriel

I like McCartney though no idea why  ;D
(McCartney II was dreadful)
Title: Re: Microscope: McCartney
Post by: Hello Goodbye on August 15, 2011, 02:41:32 AM
I eagerly awaited the release of this album and was very pleased with Paul's first solo effort.  I expected the album to be dedicated in some way to Linda and wasn't surprised with the opening piece which was really nothing more than a sound check.  As short as it is, it says much.  I knew at the time that Maybe I'm Amazed would become one of Paul's signature songs.  I'm not surprised at its popularity over the past 41 years.

I like all of the "fully-developed" songs on McCartney.  I even like all the instrumentals on this album.  I sat in amazement listening to the album for the first time in 1970 while reading the notes that Paul played all the instruments himself.  What he did on his own was phenomenal and I'll never tire of this album.
Title: Re: Microscope: McCartney
Post by: tkitna on August 16, 2011, 01:32:35 AM
Overall, I cut Paul a bit of slack seeing as how he was at a vulnerable low ebb and, seen (wrongly) by the public as the man who walked out on his three bandmates and with the other ex-Beatles seemingly aligned against him, was very much on the defensive back in 1970.

But he was and is capable of so much better.

Nice review Mr. M. I see we just about stand eye to eye with our opinions. I think a little more about 'Maybe I'm Amazed' than you and prefer the instrumental Junk, but besides that, there's not much else thats different.
Title: Re: Microscope: McCartney
Post by: Toejam on August 21, 2011, 09:15:25 PM
Wow! There's some tough critisim doled out to ol' Paul for thiss album on this thread. It's refreshing to be on a forum that isn't totally sychopantic to everything Paul does. I think I agree with most of the critisism but I also think it's not really important apart from the fact Paul was asking people to shell out their hard earned moolah for something so overwhelmingly 1/2 assed. I like it and it's nice to put on esp. now I've got itunes and do a playlist with Another day on it to give it a bit of extra padding at the start but reading this thread really brings it home to me just how /1/2 baked an amaturish so much of it is.
Title: Re: Microscope: McCartney
Post by: tkitna on August 22, 2011, 12:40:44 AM
Wow! There's some tough critisim doled out to ol' Paul for thiss album on this thread. It's refreshing to be on a forum that isn't totally sychopantic to everything Paul does. I think I agree with most of the critisism but I also think it's not really important apart from the fact Paul was asking people to shell out their hard earned moolah for something so overwhelmingly 1/2 assed. I like it and it's nice to put on esp. now I've got itunes and do a playlist with Another day on it to give it a bit of extra padding at the start but reading this thread really brings it home to me just how /1/2 baked an amaturish so much of it is.

Welcome to the boards ToeJam. Nice post too. I like the way you think.
Title: Re: Microscope: McCartney
Post by: nimrod on August 22, 2011, 01:34:59 AM
Wow! There's some tough critisim doled out to ol' Paul for thiss album on this thread. It's refreshing to be on a forum that isn't totally sychopantic to everything Paul does. I think I agree with most of the critisism but I also think it's not really important apart from the fact Paul was asking people to shell out their hard earned moolah for something so overwhelmingly 1/2 assed. I like it and it's nice to put on esp. now I've got itunes and do a playlist with Another day on it to give it a bit of extra padding at the start but reading this thread really brings it home to me just how /1/2 baked an amaturish so much of it is.

as opposed to nowadays when you can just smash the doors in and take it for free  roll:)
Title: Re: Microscope: McCartney
Post by: glass onion on August 23, 2011, 05:29:18 PM
hi guys.mccartney 1 isn't half baked,or half assed,or anything else along those lines.it's the album paul wanted out at that time,and it is a marmite album.you like it or you don't.that's it,really.the album after, (ram),took it the other way being highly polished and very complete.
the noise arond 5 seconds into 'the lovely linda' is a door squeaking in pauls' house in cavendish avenue.parts of mccartney 1 were used in the tom cruise film 'jerry mcguire'.
mccartney 1 is one of my very favourite albums ever.i love the incompleteness,i love the sketching,just my favourite beatle jamming along and playing some works-in-progress.it is what it is,folks.a duffer?o.k,no problem.go listen to ram or band on the run,then.it was all new to paul at the time......nobody to say 'no',no-one to question him.he had a little fun,and i love the album!!
Title: Re: Microscope: McCartney
Post by: tkitna on August 23, 2011, 08:30:00 PM
hi guys.mccartney 1 isn't half baked,or half assed,or anything else along those lines.it's the album paul wanted out at that time,and it is a marmite album.you like it or you don't.that's it,really.the album after, (ram),took it the other way being highly polished and very complete.

Just stating my opinion here and nothing else, because i'm aware people enjoy it, but I do think its half assed because he was bitter at the time and just wanted to be the first person to release something. Wasnt this album released or done before the Beatles even broke up? I cant remember the whole deal, but I thought Paul was upset because John said he was going to quit so Paul being Paul, announced he was leaving to the press or something and gave them copies of this album. If i'm off base, I apologize. Seriously, i'd have to look it up.
Title: Re: Microscope: McCartney
Post by: nimrod on August 23, 2011, 10:02:02 PM
all you have to remember Todd is that John met Yoko, Paul met Linda, that was the end of The Beatles  :(

I think they had a meeting and John/Yoko said John was quiting but they agreed not to announce anything publicly, then a bit later suddenly Paul releases this album with a sort of mock interview included stating that HE was leaving the band. John got mad at that, but in a way I dont blame Paul, John was a prick for quiting, why couldnt they stay together but still do solo things like The Stones or Moody Blues, loads of bands have done that, trouble was the wives seemed not to want them to be Beatles, particularly Yoko.
Title: Re: Microscope: McCartney
Post by: Toejam on August 24, 2011, 07:18:26 AM
Just stating my opinion here and nothing else, because i'm aware people enjoy it, but I do think its half assed because he was bitter at the time and just wanted to be the first person to release something.

Good point.  I've never thought about it like that before.
Title: Re: Microscope: McCartney
Post by: glass onion on August 24, 2011, 09:27:56 AM
Just stating my opinion here and nothing else, because i'm aware people enjoy it, but I do think its half assed because he was bitter at the time and just wanted to be the first person to release something. Wasnt this album released or done before the Beatles even broke up? I cant remember the whole deal, but I thought Paul was upset because John said he was going to quit so Paul being Paul, announced he was leaving to the press or something and gave them copies of this album. If i'm off base, I apologize. Seriously, i'd have to look it up.
you could be right todd,i'm not sure if ringos' album was due out at the same time,i know let it be was due out and also hey jude(i think)the album compilation.he was probably bitter but also feeling a bit liberated so let's get an album out...'on heat' so to speak.i think there is a soft spot for the record,obviously it's not perfect;some sketches are just that;on the whole though i think it is very of it's time beatles-wise.i personally have all the time in the world for it,and i can see why others wouldn't have.
Title: Re: Microscope: McCartney
Post by: tkitna on August 24, 2011, 11:28:42 AM
I think i'm wrong guys. I just read up a little on the album and it appears Paul had planned on releasing it as it was. Ringo's album was also near completion. John and George sent Ringo over to Pauls to have him try and talk Paul out of releasing 'McCartney' until after 'Let It Be' was released and Paul got p*ssed about that. He kicked Ringo out and released the album as he intended which p*ssed the other Beatles off even further. Looks like the album was the way he wanted it to be.

I dont hate the album. I just dont think its very good. I can listen to it and enjoy it, but its just not one that I go looking for on the shelve very often.
Title: Re: Microscope: McCartney
Post by: Mr Mustard on August 24, 2011, 02:08:35 PM
In fairness to all the former Beatles, retrospectives like this should try and take into account their individual mindsets at the time.

Paul was very much on the defensive back in 1970. The legal battle lines were drawn against him, with the other three aligning with Klein and each, at various times, having either temporarily left the group (Ringo and George) or announced clearly but privately that they wanted out (John). The protracted "Get Back" project, eventually manifested as "Let It Be" with Spector at the production helm under John's and George's approval - Paul again the outvoted Beatle. Paul was always the most consciencous Beatle, and at a low ebb with his three mates against him, reverted to type by "going back to basics" (the whole ethos behind his visions for the ill-fated "Get Back"). When in doubt, McCartney tends to withdraw into his comfort zone of familiarity. Consequently, "McCartney" could hardly be expected to be anything other than a tame and timid, self absorbed, insular affair. Despite (rather than because of) this, Paul's innate talent could not help but shine through here and there, even as he retreated with Linda into the simple, unfettered farm life to lick his wounds.

Fascinatingly, the other Beatles now forged their own pathways: George blossomed with relief, having at last escaped the giant shadows of Lennon & McCartney, to at last flex his songwriting muscles on a grandiose scale and indulge himself in the studio. John, the unpredictable and prickly Beatle, following the primal scream therapy with Yoko, channelled all his rage and insecurity into an astonishingly powerful and blisteringly honest catharsis. Ringo reverted to form, releasing a brace of albums - the first a twee collection of standards ("For my mum") the second a wallow in his beloved Nashville Country & Western scene.

It's ironic to remember that Paul was at least partially seen as "the villain" back then, blamed as the one who walked out ("Paul is quitting The Beatles" screamed the tabloid headlines) when he had been the one most determined to rally "the lads" and keep the show on the road. I think he was the most frightened of the future, even with Linda beside him. But as John pointed out only four years later: they needed to get away from each other but at the same time were nervous of being on their own. Can we blame them?

To give credit where it's due I honestly believe that both Linda and Yoko gave their men the courage and confidence to be themselves and not feel obliged to be the public's beloved "Beatles" any more....

the dream was over  ;)
Title: Re: Microscope: McCartney
Post by: nimrod on August 24, 2011, 11:42:58 PM
It's ironic to remember that Paul was at least partially seen as "the villain" back then, blamed as the one who walked out ("Paul is quitting The Beatles" screamed the tabloid headlines) when he had been the one most determined to rally "the lads" and keep the show on the road

from all the reading Ive done and interviews Ive read etc Id place a lot of the blame for the break up on Paul.

Yes Mr M you are correct with the above statement but the main reason there was a backlash against Paul was that he was was taking over the band, becoming the leader, the idea's man, the musical director, the frustration shows in Harrisons "I'll play whatever you want or I wont play at all' and Lennons 'Let It be is basically the Paul McCartney show'.

Ive played in enough bands to have seen there is usually someone who 'appoints' himself as the unofficial boss eventually and that can rub people up the wrong way when a band is supposed to be a sort of equal concept.
Theres a part in the Imagine film where theyre eating at the table and joking (obviously aimed at Paul IMO) about 'Beatle Ed' being no 6 in Sweden, this again shows the general animosity the others had towards Paul especially as he tried to foist his father in law Lee Eastman onto the other 3 as the new manager, surely for decisions like that, the majority vote should rule but Paul was having none of that and it ended up in court.
Im not saying Paul was totally the bad guy here but just saying that he shoulders some of the blame for the break up and just because he wanted to keep going and doing more gigs doesnt make him a saint.

Title: Re: Microscope: McCartney
Post by: Mr Mustard on August 25, 2011, 12:47:00 AM
I certainly wouldn't portray any of them as saints Kev. The point I was trying to make was that Paul, moreso than the other three, desperately wanted to keep the show on the road because he seemed the most fearful at the prospect of a future on his own. Once The Beatles finally fell apart, it doesn't surprise me that it was Macca who quickly formed a new band, Wings, whereas John, George and Ringo all pursued more solo journeys. Bizarrely for one so talented, Paul somehow lacked confidence where John, for example, would brazen it out, even though he was every bit as insecure underneath. Paul's "leadership" (which only really evolved gradually with John's boredom and abdication of the role) was interpreted as "bossiness" by the others, but they were ALL lazier than Paul, and without his motivation, much of the group's great latterday material just wouldn't have got off the ground with the same sort of shape, polish and discipline. He had a great work ethic and always kept abreast of what the public wanted - the others were less bothered, certainly by 1970.

Yes, Paul takes his share of the "blame" for their disbandment (was this anyone's "fault"? weren't they allowed to grow up and move on?) but the irony is that he broke it to the press when John had previously agreed to bite his lip and keep the inevitable separation under wraps despite him (Lennon) being the one most ready and willing to pull the plug.... as John later said, it was like a cartoon with three guys walking off stage in different directions, with the fourth one on his own in the spotlight left behind to declare: "I'm Leaving!"
Title: Re: Microscope: McCartney
Post by: nimrod on August 25, 2011, 02:10:09 AM
Paul's "leadership" (which only really evolved gradually with John's boredom and abdication of the role) was interpreted as "bossiness" by the others, but they were ALL lazier than Paul, and without his motivation, much of the group's great latterday material just wouldn't have got off the ground with the same sort of shape, polish and discipline. He had a great work ethic and always kept abreast of what the public wanted - the others were less bothered, certainly by 1970.

theres no doubt that he was the keenest to keep it all going towards the end and he had seemingly more energy than the others but in some ways his eagerness and desire to start the band doing gigs again kinda ended up having a negative effect, the others saw it as him being bossy and pushy and reacted against that by being even more ambivalent towards the band and him.
Had Paul took a step back and diplomatically let things unfold in time the others may have decided to put the band on the back burner and do solo things.....in other words, take a sabbatical.
The Stones and other big name bands have done this successfully so I dont see why The Beatles couldnt have taken that path, yes John privately announced he was quitting the band but as we (and surely the others new) John could change his mind overnight, sadly though I think Paul caused all out war with his releasing McCartney before Let It Be complete with the infamous included 'interview' insert, and of course with his stance re Lee Eastman.

as a footnote;

John Lennon stated in his 1970 interview with Rolling Stone editor Jann Wenner that, given McCartney's penchant for demanding perfectionism in the studio from his fellow Beatles, he was surprised at the lack of quality in the album...
Title: Re: Microscope: McCartney
Post by: glass onion on August 25, 2011, 08:11:27 AM
it's a well known fact that paul was/is very pushy,demanding,bossy etc but that is the kind of business that he's in.from grass roots level upwards,in my experience in bands, it is vital you have somebody who does 'take charge' so to speak,otherwise you'd never get anything done.the problem that paul had really is that by the get back sessions,the others had had enough of the whole beatles show anyway.paul had been pushy since the day dot if you read back in the beatles history hard enough.straightening johns' tie before going on stage.playing lead guitar on ticket to ride.paul was always the 'keenie'.i remember ringo said before the sgt.pepper album he used to dread the phone ringing because it would be paul,'come on lads,time to make an album'.i think paul was doing the right thing,really-john certainly needed pushing to get his best work out of him.or any work,for that matter.
Title: Re: Microscope: McCartney
Post by: Toejam on August 25, 2011, 09:30:32 AM
Imuch of the group's great latterday material just wouldn't have got off the ground with the same sort of shape, polish and discipline.

like the White album? Shape, polish and discipline are all words I associatie with the white album ;D
Title: Re: Microscope: McCartney
Post by: chimac on August 28, 2011, 12:18:10 AM
I've always enjoyed McCartney I.  I just don't feel the occasion to play it as often as his better works.  I consider it to be a light and airy confection, as opposed to a "meal".  I believe Paul intended it as such.  For me, it was his "this is who I am at home" album.  Just another means for him to step out of the Beatles as an individual, and notable by its completely ANTI-political tone, which is how John had decided to separate himself.  Tossed off and imperfect, even "half-assed", I think it accomplished its purpose:  it got Paul a vehicle out of the Beatles. 

Paul wasn't in the mindset at the time to do a "produced" album, with months and months of work involved.  He needed something tangible out there quick that said "Paul McCartney" on it.  As an artistic work it hasn't much merit, except "it's the album 'Maybe I'm Amazed' is on".  Still, Paul has made it clear throughout the entirety of his career that he wants to be able to do both polished works (Sgt. Pepper, Abbey Road, Ram, Band on the Run, etc) and stuff he whipped together in his basement (McCartney, McCartney II, first 2 Fireman albums, etc).  And, he wants to do either as the mood strikes him!  As fans this can drive us nuts, but there is a certain integrity to it.
Title: Re: Microscope: McCartney
Post by: glass onion on August 29, 2011, 08:58:04 AM
I've always enjoyed McCartney I.  I just don't feel the occasion to play it as often as his better works.  I consider it to be a light and airy confection, as opposed to a "meal".  I believe Paul intended it as such.  For me, it was his "this is who I am at home" album.  Just another means for him to step out of the Beatles as an individual, and notable by its completely ANTI-political tone, which is how John had decided to separate himself.  Tossed off and imperfect, even "half-assed", I think it accomplished its purpose:  it got Paul a vehicle out of the Beatles. 

Paul wasn't in the mindset at the time to do a "produced" album, with months and months of work involved.  He needed something tangible out there quick that said "Paul McCartney" on it.  As an artistic work it hasn't much merit, except "it's the album 'Maybe I'm Amazed' is on".  Still, Paul has made it clear throughout the entirety of his career that he wants to be able to do both polished works (Sgt. Pepper, Abbey Road, Ram, Band on the Run, etc) and stuff he whipped together in his basement (McCartney, McCartney II, first 2 Fireman albums, etc).  And, he wants to do either as the mood strikes him!  As fans this can drive us nuts, but there is a certain integrity to it.
nice post,chimac.welcome to the forum. ;)
Title: Re: Microscope: McCartney
Post by: tkitna on August 29, 2011, 11:33:35 PM
For me, it was his "this is who I am at home" album.

Nicely said. That outlook lifyed some of my dislike of the album. I never thought about it like that.
Title: Re: Microscope: McCartney
Post by: nimrod on August 30, 2011, 12:33:32 AM

Nicely said. That outlook lifyed some of my dislike of the album. I never thought about it like that.

think thats what Ive been struggling to say all through this thread  ha2ha
Title: Re: Microscope: McCartney
Post by: Bobber on September 12, 2011, 12:08:13 PM
I'll be dealing with Ram in a couple of days.
Title: Re: Microscope: McCartney
Post by: tkitna on September 13, 2011, 01:00:27 AM
I'll be dealing with Ram in a couple of days.

I'm anxiously awaiting.
Title: Re: Microscope: McCartney
Post by: Frightwolf on November 20, 2011, 06:02:27 AM
I've always wondered what Maybe I'm Amazed would have sounded like if the Beatles had recorded it with George Martin as producer.  Oh, the possibilities...

Junk is a funny thing because you describe it as not something you'd put in a "Best of Paul McCartney" list.  I gave my friend several McCartney compilations, and Junk was one of the stand-outs for him.  Crazy how tastes can be so different.

This is a nice little album to listen to and has some true stand-outs.  Besides the obvious Maybe I'm Amazed would be Hot as Sun/Glasses as a great little tune with a cool, kind of creepy sound at the end.
Title: Re: Microscope: McCartney
Post by: nimrod on June 15, 2012, 01:07:10 AM
I just re listened to this album again and Ive tried to work out why I prefer it to his other post Beatle stuff

conclusion = Ive no idea
Title: Re: Microscope: McCartney
Post by: tkitna on June 15, 2012, 04:57:54 AM
conclusion = Ive no idea

No need for a reason. Thats the beauty in music. Everybody has their own flavor.