How was Paul getting washed up with Memory in your opinion?
Well, I just feel like he's trying to be hipper than he actually is. The musical style on Memory Almost Full just isn't something he can pull off as well as his trademark style, in my opinion. I don't expect everyone to agree, in fact I'm probably in the minority. I'm just saying how i feel.
"Dance Tonight" is a nifty single, and the first Paul record I've taken notice of in a few years now, truth be told. I should probably get to a record store, if any of those still exist.
It's a great little song. His lyrics are often critisised, sometimes rightly so, and these are no great shakes, but it's just a fun, throwaway song, so who needs complex lyrics? It sounds like he made the whole thing up on the spot.
I just want you to reassure him - talk to him, make him see the error of his ways. Then I'll hit him.
It's a great little song. His lyrics are often critisised, sometimes rightly so, and these are no great shakes, but it's just a fun, throwaway song, so who needs complex lyrics? It sounds like he made the whole thing up on the spot.
Exactly. Songs are good for different reasons, I think. Sometimes a great lyric carries a tune, and other times the lyric is more or less incidental and it's the sound or mood that makes the thing work. One of the reservations I always had about seventies' rock criticism is that they often had a bias toward ambitious, self conscious lyrics. They sort of forgot that one of the things rock music can do is just make you want to get up and dance. For Paul, I think music is more about creating a sound than any literal meaning in words. For John (and George) on the other hand, it was more about conveying personal (and general) truths as they saw them through music.
Exactly. Songs are good for different reasons, I think. Sometimes a great lyric carries a tune, and other times the lyric is more or less incidental and it's the sound or mood that makes the thing work. One of the reservations I always had about seventies' rock criticism is that they often had a bias toward ambitious, self conscious lyrics. They sort of forgot that one of the things rock music can do is just make you want to get up and dance. For Paul, I think music is more about creating a sound than any literal meaning in words. For John (and George) on the other hand, it was more about conveying personal (and general) truths as they saw them through music.
Often people forget that sometimes the lyrics are just there as an aid to melody, and not really to be listened to word for word.
I just want you to reassure him - talk to him, make him see the error of his ways. Then I'll hit him.
Often people forget that sometimes the lyrics are just there as an aid to melody, and not really to be listened to word for word.
I think so. It's taking a literary or literal minded approach to something that's more felt than anything else. It's kind of like asking what the Mona Lisa means or who she is and what she's thinking about. Not irrelevant questions, but maybe beside the point.
I was wondering this morning what this new album might be like ,will it follow on from C&C and MAF with there slightly autobiographical feel , or will he supprise us with an album thats vintage bonkers McCartney that relates to nothing much ? kind of Ram meets Wildlife , Ive got a sneaky feeling it could be the later , think he might just want to have some fun with his music ? What do you think serious Paul or daft Paul ?
We haven't really had "daft Paul" in a while (that I've heard, anyway); so that perhaps leaves the more "serious" variant. Wouldn't mind hearing some rock 'n' roll Paul, myself: I enjoyed "Run Devil Run."
Home
Calendar
Search
Register
Login
Harlena McStarkney
Female
Male
Logged
