Josh Fitzgerald <Joshsf@aol.com> (26.05.99)

Of the three main Beatles solo artists-(excluding Ringo) Paul Mc is my favorite. John's was too sentimental, and George's was too overblown. Not that they were bad solo artists, it's just that Paul is my fav. He always kept his style just right. Never overbearing. You're right about his 80s output though. Blah!!!!

Simon Hearn <simon@leehearn.freeserve.co.uk> (07.09.99)

John was the greatest post beatles artist, no question. Mccartney I want to love as a solo artist, but he produced over blow below average material. This is a shame because he is such a talent. 'Live and let die' and 'another day' stand up, the rest does not. Flaming pie however was a good return to form. Note this was recorded AFTER compling to beatles anthology. Co-incidence - I think not - the magic returned for a brief time.

Jeff Blehar <jdb3@jhu.edu> (08.02.2000)

I've always been a music man rather than a lyrics man. This isn't to say that I don't care about a good lyric (I most certainly do), but rather that I first take to a song based on its melodic, textural, or atmospheric interest, all of which are functions more of the music than of the lyrics for me. I suppose that's why I really enjoy McCartney's solo output more than I'm supposed to - I've got the complete works for all four, and while I think Harrison's All Things Must Pass is easily the best album by an ex-Beatle, McCartney is more consistently listenable, at least up until 1982 or so. For the record, I find most of what George says to be true: McCartney is GRUESOMELY underrated, and that his catalog is a happy little goldmine to dig through. Yet I'd also like to say that you don't necessarily have to like McCartney's late-period Beatles output to like his solo work; I for one heartily dislike "Honey Pie," and I utterly DESPISE "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" as the single most atrocious, steaming piece of tripe that McCartney ever foisted upon The Beatles and a tragic representation of why they broke up (read an account of the recording of the song in a Beatles chronicle and you'll understand what I mean by that).

Rich Bunnell <taosterman@yahoo.com> (08.02.2000)

If I hear one more person bashing "Maxwell's Silver Hammer," I will kill him. How can you people not like that melody? It's freakin' awesome!

Jeff Blehar <jdb3@jhu.edu> (09.02.2000)

Ouch, Rich! "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" isn't worth killing anyone over! Because then you'd be no better than Maxwell himself. ;-) Seriously though (although maybe this discussion should be taken to the relevant section of The Beatles page), I think the melody of the song is wonderful, a prime slice of McCartneyesque verticality (i.e., notice how most of Paul's tunes bounce up and down while a lot of John's remain "horizontal," or anchored around a few notes? "Iamheasyouasheasyoume," "Living is easy with eyes closed," etc.). What I'm offended by are the lyrics; ugh! Somewhere on George's Steely Dan page he gets disgusted with their song "Everything You Did," about...well, it's sick. But "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" is too. What makes it worse is the blithe cheeriness of the music, as if bashing in women's skulls with hammers was no problem at all. I'm not an uptight jerk, though, and If that were it alone I guess I'd just cordially dislike it; what makes me HATE it is that McCartney refused to let it go in the studio, much like "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da," forcing John, George and Ringo to expend whatever little good-will they had left towards each other rerecording the song OVER and OVER again, convinced that it could be a single if done right. All sorts of fights broke out, yelling, etc. Thoughtlessly selfish, and all for a silly cause - if it had been "Strawberry Fields Forever" or heck, even "Martha My Dear" they were working on, I wouldn't have minded, but to waste their draining friendship on such a callow trivial song...well that's why I hate it.

Ivan Piperov <zwetan@stud.uni-frankfurt.de> (09.02.2000)

I'm sick and tired of hearing Paul is simply gorgeous, rich and selfish. I think he's really cool. He makes cool music, eats no animals and is my favourite bass player.

Kathleen Keplar <rkeplar@norcom2000.com> (30.05.2000)

Having already sent a lengthy remark concerning the Beatles to this site some time ago, I'm forced to be brief here, and that's a difficult feat for me. I don't like this guy at all, and I've tried my damnedest to admire him for a long time. Terrific bassist...with the Beatles. Terrific composer...with the Beatles. Good singer...with the Beatles (This one is a more often than not thing, after more than half an album's worth of listening his voice just turns bland to my ears.) Had his moments as a lyricist...again, with the Beatles. Before I got into playing music he was my favorite Beatle, but when I learned what it was all about first hand it became Lennon who held me in awe. McCartney is a performer first, an artist second. A show off first, a musician second.

Andrew Ashby <ashbya@lindahall.org> (14.11.2000)

i think Pual [sic! - G. S.] McCartney sucks....

Teresa Juarez Guzman <ggr74017@prodigy.net.mx> (26.11.2000)

McCartney? From "Yesterday" to "Beautiful Night", I've listened to every beautiful composition that he's commited to record. His voice and charms have allowed him to be sentimental but not corny. If you think that McCartney sucks then you surely haven't listened to the final number of the White Album (that is: you don't know what rock music is). That feeling sums up the best efforts from his solo career (to me: Red Rock Speedway, Ram and Band On The Run)... But, going back to the Beatles' tune... (in a whispering voice:) "Good night everybody, everywhere. Good night". Fade out. That's enough to give me the chills, after the mind-blowing "Revolution 9" (another McCartney project!). OK, I'm not an objective reviewer (the exclamation resource), but a fan and a "Macca" completist. So what? Check it out!: Paul McCartney was the most talented member of the best pop music in history. (And surely a very enjoyable solo force.) Maybe his concerts are tiresome, and there's one or two records that I don't care for (Give my regards to Broad Street and Press To Play), but everybody is allowed to suck a little every now and then, and Lennon's fans know what I'm talking about: the Yoko numbers --fillers?-- are not Beatle material exactly. But I'm moving away from my point. Which is? Paul McCartney is "live", and a musical genius.

<JSeraf7064@aol.com> (26.11.2000)

I happened across your page recently and I'd like to say I enjoyed it very much. I have been a McCartney fan since the 70's.

Sergey Zhilkin <sergey_jilkin@mail.ru> (29.11.2000)

What a strange person Paul is! He tells us that he hates electronic music but then he produces such things as Press to play. He says he isn't a money-maker but do you know how many concerts did he hold while Flowers in the dirts? 43! He said he was a good father but then Japanese police caught Linda for keeping joint in her bag... But even if he's Demon in the body of a man we shouldn't care about it - all in all, we are talking about his music.

Robert Tally <BtheW@aol.com> (11.01.2001)

Ironically, even though I have all of his albums, I don't really count myself as a Paul McCartney fan.  I collect his stuff for the same reasons I collect George and Ringo albums - basically to complete my Beatles collection.  However, I can't deny that the guy is tremendously talented, and stands in my mind as one of the most gifted songwriters (and one of the two or three best rock bassists) around. I guess my reservations mainly come by way of style. For instance, I've never cared for the big ballads like 'My Love' or 'Only Love Remains' or 'Beautiful Night'.  They're all a little too safe and formal for me. Some of his songs are also rather stupid in my estimation (I think 'Spies Like Us', 'P.S. Love Me Do' and 'Girlfriend' speak for themselves). Nevertheless, even with these kinds of things, he generally writes solid songs in a technically sense. Even an album as undesirable as Press To Play has some fairly serious attempts at songwriting on it. Although I'd rather not hear all the techno stuff on there, I can tolerate that if only the melodies were stronger. And, of course, Paul likes to offer up every little meaningless doodle and jam that comes along (as evidenced by songs like 'Looking For You' and sometimes entire albums like Wild Life or McCartney II). As far as McCartney being kind of 'light', this doesn't bother me, since I sometimes feel like listening to something light.  And usually, he doesn't affect me much when he's being serious (I'll listen to Lennon for that). 'Too Many People', 'Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey', 'Ballroom Dancing' and the entire Band On The Run are always worth listening to if all you want is catchy pop music. That's his specialty. Once in a while he does a serious tune that gets to me, such as 'Maybe I'm Amazed', 'Picasso's Last Words', or the Elvis collaborations, but these are few and far between. As a rocker, I think McCartney was generally unimpressive during his solo years, at least until the release of Run Devil Run, which I might like even more than Band On The Run. I mean, some of those songs just knock me on my ass. As far as his excursions into the great unknown, such as the three techno albums he's done with Youth, I can pretty much pass on these with the exception of Rushes. His classical stuff almost always sounds good to my ears, with the exception of the Liverpool Oratorio, which I think is way too inconsistent. If there's one thing that really stands out about McCartney's solo output, it's the unexpected little songs that show up in unpredictable places, like b-sides and bonus tracks. Some of my favorite McCartney songs include such obscure titles as 'I Lie Around', 'Country Dreamer', 'Rainclouds', 'I'll Give You A Ring', 'Flying To My Home', 'Long Leather Coat' and 'Broomstick'. You just never know what he's going to do next, both in terms of style and in terms of quality. So proceed with extreme caution.

Morten Felgenhauer <Morten.Felgenhauer@kvaerner.com> (16.01.2001)

Yeah, George! You stand up for Paul and tell the world the truth. Of course there has been some songs of Paul that the world could manage without, but send me a list of artists that have only released classic songs, if you can. I think I will be waiting a very long time for that one. I'm so sick and tired of hearing about 'sappy' Paul and 'serious' John. I'll admit that John always was more personal in his lyrics and generally cared more for his words than Paul, but after 1972 the 'sappy' one was John. And don't you tell me otherwise! Did John even rock ONCE between 73 and 80 (yes, I have heard Rock and Roll)? Now I'm not bashing John here, just trying to balance out things a bit. The only thing that matters is if the music is GOOD or BAD. And Paul has produced A LOT of very good songs in his solo career - and it's not the perfectly crafted melodies, there are intriguing arrangements and truly original chord progressions and basslines. So he doesn't sing about his dead mother? Well, neither did Jimi Hendrix or The Rolling Stones, but their music is still frigging good! And so is Paul's. And he is always bashed for being too commercial, and when he does something odd he is critisized for that as well. I'm not too impressed with his classical works or the electronic ones, but he deserve credit for trying. And his two McCartney albums make interesting listening, even if the results are of varying quality. I don't know if it's a good thing, but when John and Paul commented on Northern Ireland in song, Paul released his song ('Give Ireland Back To The Irish') 4 months before John. Otherwise he has usually been unpolitical in his lyrics and that is in his favour. Just listen to the music, and free your mind from those hypocritical blockings you have had there since John died.

Matthew Carney <mjcarney_00@yahoo.com> (26.01.2001)

Paul McCartney's solo career is an interesting subject. I mean, as far as talent goes, he cannot be beat. He is the most talented member of his former group. This is saying a lot, but let me explain. Paul was simply their best musician, he could play every instrument and play it well. He is one of rock and roll's most gifted bass players and he is a more than adequate guitar player (although I believe by the end George had clearly mastered that instrument more than Paul), he is a good piano player, drums and you name it Paul can play it and for the most part play it well. Paul, of course was a talented tunesmith. He has the rare ability to churn out countless numbers of strong, catchy melodies at will--a trait which he can still do today. Paul also is a perfectionist. The Beatles material probably wouldn't have sounded so crisp (even under the brilliant guidance of Sir George Martin) had it not been for Paul's strong work ethic, which he clearly continued throughout much of his solo career due to the glossy production and perfect playing he achieved from musicians (especially his wife) who might not have had the talent of his old band mates. Note: I am not knocking Linda, but she just wasn't the most talented performer out there. Well with all this praise then, why would I say that Paul has been the most dissapointing former Beatle? Well, that is easy. Paul McCartney has throughout his solo--and actually somewhat during the later half of Beatles career--tended to work more on perfecting/shining-up an incomplete musical idea rather than working specifically on perfecting the song itself first. He has done this throughout his solo career with mixed results. Some albums, Ram, Band on the Run, Venus and Mars, and even his latest Run Devil Run have their share of astounding moments and are all pretty strong releases. Others like his spotty unfinished debut, his first few Wings releases, and especially his early 90's material (but I haven't even heard his early 80's stuff) are chock full of great ideas that were just recorded over and over and over again before he had perfected them. I mean for instance let's listen to "Bip Bop"--an easy one to attack I know, but this is just one of the first one's I could think of. The song has an engaging melody, and is very catchy (in fact its in my head quite often), but instead of changing the lyrics on that one and making a SUBSTANTIAL song, Paul left them there, glossed the song up and made the song seem more substantial than it really was, and that is only the tip of the iceberg. It is this mentality that can make Paul aggravating at times, and I do think that if he had a songwriter like John around to help him with these moments that his solo career could easily have stayed in par with his best Beatles work if not surpassed it. It is just unfortunate that he didn't have a songwriter like John around to help him, and I think because of this his solo stuff has suffered the most. I mean John's solo career wasn't the greatest either--he had his spotty mid-70's period. George just started off great and hasn't approached that level since. However, Paul McCartney never did make that one indispensible album that he was easily capable of doing (his best remain Band on the Run which deserves--despite my earlier, harsh review at least an 8/10 despite its filler). All hope on Paul is not lost though, as even today he is capable of writing several amazingly good songs (as he proved on Flaming Pie's highlights and his strong 3 songs from Rund Devil Run), he just still hasn't been able to write quite enough to make a filler free classic album in the vein of almost all of his Beatles work. Although unlike many of the artists of the 60's, I think Paul still could come up with something of that caliber. He is a very interesting legend indeed, but he has still remained a dissapointing legend over the last few years because everyone knows he is capable of so much more.

Paul Inglis <thepopeofpop@yahoo.com> (28.01.2001)

I've just been reading your very interesting Paul McCartney page. Although John Lennon was my favourite Beatle, I can certainly name many McCartney songs (both with the Beatles and solo) that are "up there" with the best songs of all time. "Maybe I'm Amazed", for example. I'm also very fond of the Ram and Band on the Run albums. "Jet" is absolutely superb! Of McCartney's more recent output, Off the Ground and Flowers in the Dirt are quite good (although FITD is badly overproduced).

<SamsJoanna@netscape.net> (09.02.2001)

After being a massive Beatles fan for some years(I'm only 22 now)i decided to see what there solo stuff was like. I decided to start with paul first(don't ask me why)I got All the best which even though is a great album isn't a true representation of his work,so then i got McCartney and started collecting them straightaway.Paul never claimed to be writing songs to change the way of the world that was John's forte. Paul changed the world with his songs in a different way with great melodies,hooks,sounds,bass playing and fun. And that's what Paul's music is fun!Appreciate the talent now and not when it's gone we've already done that with John.

Palash Ghosh <palash7@hotmail.com> (17.02.2001)

I fully agree with you that Paul McCartney's solo career has been unfairly dismissed by critics as 'forgettable lightweight pop.' During the early 1970's he recorded many many songs that were as good (if not better, in some cases) than his peak Beatle-era songs. What ruined some of his better solo compositions, however, were poorly chosen lyrics (he hadn't have John Lennon around to toss around better ideas).

Eric Rogozin <erogozin@mtu-net.ru> (18.04.2001)

I consider Paul McCartney the greatest musician on Earth! He's a MUSICAL GENIUS!!! You know, he's got a celestrial voice (one of the best rock vocalists ever); he's one of the greatest bass players, even the BEST bassist in the world to my opinion; first of all, he's a multi-instrumentalist, the greatest songwriter of Twentieth Century, in one word, he's extremely talented man...in short, he's a GENIUS.

Glenn Wiener <glennjwiener@hotmail.com> (05.07.2001)

From a commercial standpoint, Paul McCartney was the most successful of the individual Beatles after the breakup. There was a point during the seventies when his group Wings was even compared to the Beatles. However, at the end of the seventies Wings disintegrated into nothing and Paul McCartney put out a great deal of forgettable pop music. I can barely even remember any of his songs from the eighties. Paul seemed to lose his creativity.

Ellen Byrd <ellenbyrd@hotmail.com> (08.12.2001)

Hi, I think that Paul McCartney was the most talented of the Beatles. Why? Because he has written more of the "greatest songs ever" than any of the others. Sometimes "Imagine" is regarded as one of them, and so is "I Want to Hold Your Hand" (I believe that I read that "I Want to Hold Your Hand" was principally by Lennon).What about "Hey Jude", "Let It Be" and "Yesterday"? Certainly, "Hey Jude" and "Yesterday" are usually voted above the aforementioned Lennon songs, and "Let It Be" is too. Also, don't forget about "Eleanor Rigby", which is certainly one of the Beatle's oddest songs. That song belies the idea that Paul couldn't think of anything new. Also, look at the oddity of the song called "For No One". The harmonies, the semi-tone slide on the repetition of the words "gone, she", the words, the clavichord, all of these things make a novel impression. I think that McCartney is often spoken of as being "less original" than Lennon because he wasn't politically active and he married a socialite. People couldn't bear to think of this relatively quiet, conventional man as being more talented than the extroverted, "intellectual", "revolutionary" Lennon.

Ryan Maffei <chaucer@ix.netcom.com> (29.03.2002)

Like the Beatles as a band, John Lennon, George Harrison, and Yoko Ono, I have very passionate feelings about Paul's music, perhaps controversial, perhaps harmless...anyway, because the man's work triggers such hate and (rock'n'roll-oriented) love in me every time I hear a spot of it, I've arranged my opinions about Paul into numbered sections:

David Ellis <DavesArtStudio@aol.com> (4.05.2002)

You know Ive heard enough rubbish nocking Paul.To tell you the truth most of you critics dont like Paul because he certainly makes any artist you can bring up look sick.You know weather you like him or not the guy has more talent than most artists around..What gets me is some of the most popular stars now days only come up with at the most 6 hits etc. in their career. Let me tell you this guy is in the guinness book of records. And the only reason you knock him is because people admire his work,and that alone gets in most of you critics crawl.But let me tell you one thing you cant knock success,so deal with it critics.

Bruno Müller <muller@ccard.com.br> (06.05.2002)

When it comes to Paul McCartney, people would be delighted to slap at his face if they only had the chance. It bothers me not only because he shouldn’t have anything else to prove to the world as an artist. It’s because they stick to his own personality to better fit him as some kind of “demon of pop crap”. On the other hand, we have “Saint John Lennon”.

Dan Hogg <dantheman_sg27@hotmail.com> (08.07.2002)

Ahhh...good old Paul. The most accessible Beatle, musically. It's no coincidence I went to his solo stuff first after hearing all the Beatles stuff I could possibly get my hands on. I can't say he's my favorite Beatle, but then again, I can't say any of them are. They all have their merits, and putting one over the other is unthinkable. Paul's the most accessible, and also the most dumped-on by the critics. I guess most people hear just his radio singles and dismiss them. Too bad for them though, I always felt his most popular radio singles were different from regular album tracks, more slick and tailored for radio. And some aren't great ("My Love", "Silly Love Songs"), but others are fine ("Live and Let Die", "Let Em In"). My Macca collection isn't complete; it's highly unlikely I'll get Wild Life, Speed of Sound, McCartney II, Pipes of Peace, or your personal favorite Press To Play (hehe) anytime soon. I've gotten a few mp! 3's from these albums, I'll comment on them here.

Vincent Earley <vincent.earley@keflavik.af.mil> (23.07.2002)

There is much to be said about someone who was such an active participant in the history of pop music and culture. The fact that there is so much to say must be a testament to the man's presence in our lives for decades. Is he a great solo artist? Was he a great Beatle? Is he technically a good musician? Song-writer? That is all up to those that love his music.....or hate it. Standing in as the authority and commenting will only express your personal views in the end. The thing I want to express is that Paul McCartney was a member of a group of individuals who found themselves at the podium when the world was ready for them. People weren't just having indiscriminate sex....they were having a sexual revolution. They weren't just getting waisted, they were expanding their minds. Paul McCartney was not The Beatle, but one of them. His music was still the product of all of their efforts. With the exception of "Yesterday" I don't believe there was anything that he did that was completely void of the rest. Yes, they did an awful lot of recording alone in the latter days, but those tracks wouldn't be what they are without Lennon, Harrison, and Star recording their parts. McCartney's music now, apart from the obvious variances in creative and environmental influences would undoubtedly have allot more impact with a little help from his friends. Many of you just say something quick like "he sucks" which would be fine if you didn't spend 500 words explaining that wonderfully simple statement. Many of you folks go after him as if he betrayed your expectations and perhaps he did if you were to have fallen for the larger than life picture that George Martin painted for you. After all, that was his job and he was very good at it. Some of you think he was an asshole now since you are privy to the facts behind the scenes. These are details that are kept from the public for good reason. They show the manifestation of humanity. Paul was arrogant and selfish sometimes, George was a whiner and introverted sometimes, John was rude and insensitive sometimes, and Ringo was naive sometimes. They were also capable of huge fits of kindness I am sure. If you personally think he sucks then move on. If you think the Beatles sucked, then you are strange, but....well...there it is. I think he was a good musician. He was on time, creative enough to provide good quality material for the band and its' management to process into good solid hits, he had a good voice with plenty of range, and he was part of a team. His solo efforts are just that. Uno.....apart from the team. Or are they? What of the other band members? I know I would hate to always be known as the guitarist for Paul's latest solo effort. How long does he actually have a solo career anyway? The fact is.....no one that digs the Beatles will ever completely see Paul McCartney outside of the Beatles. Everything he does, therefore, will be a solo effort.

Max Makovec <MaxMakovec@aol.com> (05.10.2002)

I think Paul McCartney is one of the greatest songwriters in the history of pop music. But things are not that simple. On the other hand, he has produced some of the greatest crap I've ever listened to.

<DebNMarkW@aol.com> (02.03.2003)

I'm so glad to see that George had good things to say about Sir Paul. McCartney's solo work gets a fair amount of bashing which I feel to be unnecessary. The man could write songs in his sleep and play them all himself if he had to, and most musicians aren't fit to carry his jock strap. Sure he released some crap. I mean when I listen to 'Temporary Secretary' off of McCartney II I think to myself "he had to have been stoned. He just had to have been." His eighties stuff had some good moments. If 'My Brave Face' or 'Put It There' would've been recorded in 1965, they would've gone straight to number one. McCartney always knows what the audience wants and how to craft a song so that the chorus will remain in your head long after you hear it. I mean "someone's knocking at the door, someone's ringing the bell?" Something most of us say every day, we just didn't think to put it to music. He did...number one single. Band On The Run in my opinion should be in every fan's collection. Plain and simple. One of the finest albums ever made and nearly every song dealing with flight and freedom make it truly an exciting listen. But don't discount Venus and Mars either, a lot of great music on that one too. McCartney in his solo career has now actually outsold the Beatles in terms of actual sales. He's also made some wonderful music on his own and he's still referred to as an "ex Beatle." Must make him want to slit his wrists. A love song as powerful as 'My Love', a rocker as fun as 'Jet', the man can do it all...and he's still doing it. I truly believe that McCartney will never sit back and simply rest on his laurels. He will always be doing what he truly loves. His influence is felt from countless musicians to fans around the world right down to your humble author contributing this paragraph for you here. A good place to start is Wings Over America. It is a great live album and collects all his early solo hits into one place.

Josh Fitzgerald <Joshsf@aol.com> (28.07.99)

He sounds happy to make this album, and get away from The Beatles. At times, he sounds like he's having too much fun (a problem that would return for Flaming Pie), such as "Momma Miss America" , and that horrid piece at the end where Paul tries to prove he could play drums. Where's Ringo when you need him? The rest is pretty good though. Not genius or groundbreaking in any way, just fun. "Junk" is such a great song! "Maybe I'm Amazed" was really the only song on here (excpet maybe "Every Night") that would have succeded as a single. I looooove that song!!!! "Oo You" isn't that exciting, but not bad. Same goes for "That Would Be Something." I agree with you also about "Hot As Sun (Glasses)." My rating-8

Cole <bozmn@intercom.net> (18.08.99)

Gahh! What kind of crap is this? I mean, he made Ram right after -this- album? Hysterics aside, I think he should have spent more time on this and just let Ringo put his album out first. The inane grooves (I can't even begin to list individual song titles) really don't amount to much, but two songs on here are absolutely brilliant: "Junk" has a simply beautiful melody to it, and "Maybe I'm Amazed" is undoubtedly the first solo Paul classic. And... I have to admit, I like the dopey opening track "Lovely Linda". Come to think of it, there are more moments on here than at first I thought. "Singalong Junk", that karaoke version of "Junk", is still absolutely wonderful--I think the Mellotron in there is a nice touch. I have to say, though, that this just isn't the sort of thing that I'd expect from Paul, what with his impeccible production values and such. Five stars, or whatever you call your rating thing.

Mats Fjäll <mats.fjall@telia.com> (28.11.99)

Hmmm...this is a tricky one! It has some great stuff and some really bad stuff!

João Vargas <javargas@zaz.com.br> (26.12.99)

This album is, like others Paul would later record, a relaxing record, and not one that you can take too seriously. On 'Maybe I'm Amazed' and 'Every Night', he sounds like he's trying to really make an album. In other places, like 'Hot As Sun', 'The Lovely Linda', and 'Man We Was Lonely', he does some nice melodies. But in many places, he ends up sounding like there's something missing ('Valentine's Day' and 'Oo-You'). 'Kreen-Akrore' is terrible, and 'Teddy Boy' is pretty forgettable. The Anthology version is defintely better. I'd give this album a 6.

Jeff Blehar <jdb3@jhu.edu> (08.02.2000)

Paul McCartney does his version of Lennon's The Wedding Album; equally impromptu but thankfully quite a bit more melodic and listenable. This one has been on the receiving end of quite a bit of critical nastiness over the years, perhaps because people expected a more sweeping statement from a primary Beatle's first full-fledged solo album. (It certainly doesn't compare to John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band or All Things Must Pass; on the other hand, it blows Sentimental Journey all to hell.) However, time has been very kind to this one, and I for one find it a really enjoyable, if slight work. Sure those instrumentals are somewhat superfluous, but if we can enjoy Dylan's "Nashville Skyline Rag" and "Wig-wam" (which we can) we can enjoy "Momma Miss America" and the interesting experiment "Hot As Sun/Glasses," the second half of which is made by playing just that - glasses. (Also, there's an uncredited bit at the end there of an otherwise unreleased McCartney song, "Suicide" - the edit is seemingly random and the song is almost incomphrensible, which makes for a nice air of mysteriousness.)

Darren Bowers <bowers@inetworld.net> (17.06.2000)

With all of this albums short comings, it's still a very underestimated album. It's just painful to listen to these songs and seeing that they could have been polished and ended up on the next Beatles album. It sounds like these songs are brain storms of what was going to come next from Pauls input into the band. Due to the unforeseen circumstances, and the tribulation between the fab four which eventually led to them breaking up, these songs ended up on a solo project which paul recorded at his home studio. Basically Paul was very devastated about the break up and recorded this album to keep himself busy and to heal. This was at the lowest point in Paul's life. He was very depressed and feeling helpless after the Beatles dissolved. He needed something to bring him through all the nasty mess he ws going through. although there is a lot of filler, but not bad filler, there are some gems which hold up the rest of the record. Highlights would include "That would be something", "Every night," Teddy boy," and the awesome "Baby I'm amazed." The rest of the album is just charming but slight. The biggest credit on this album is that it's a one man band. Paul basically played every instrument by himself on the album. Best out of ten. I would give this album 7 1/2 for effort. It could have been a classic with maybe two or three more focused songs. It's hard to watch him fall from the olympic heights of the Beatles, but it wasn't that far of a fall. Although he would never musically achieve his greatness oh the Beatles again, his solo career is still engaging. He came pretty darn close a few times in reaching those dizzying heights, but never quit made it.

Robert Tally <BtheW@aol.com> (02.08.2000)

It's hard for me to assess the merits of this album, since it's been in my family since it was first released (right before I turned 7). At that time, I just wanted to hear catchy melodies, and this album provided those in abundance. It also seems to have a cozy rural quality that I find appealing. And it's also notably Beatlesque. So I still enjoy hearing it, what with all of its nostalgic significance.

Dan Miller <m.miller1@tinyworld.co.uk> (07.12.2000)

In my opinion 'Maybe Im Amazed' is the best composition by any of the beatles, both pre and post the break up. The mind absolutely boggles as to how it has been neglected by the general public and beatles fans in general for the last 30 years.

Sergey Zhilkin <sergey_jilkin@mail.ru> (21.12.2000)

What great cover! You know, there's a proverb in England which says that life is like a plate full of cherries.But it's empty on the cover and cherries lie near it! What does it mean?....

<SamsJoanna@netscape.net> (09.02.2001)

For a debut album it's not too bad.It's got some mini classics and some bloopers that could have been left off.He proves he can play various instruments which is nice to hear,it's got a sparse feel to it which is unusual for Paul but it works ok."The lovely linda" is still one of my favourites on this album such a sweet little tribute."That would be something" and "Valentine day" are ok but nothing mindblowing."Every night" is still a beautifal little song and very underrated. I agree with you wholeheartedly about "Hot as sun/glasses" if you don't love it instantly your mad,andhe was only 14 when he wrote it.Born talented this guy!"Junk" sounds so lonely and sad it nearly makes you cry."Man we was lonely" is my favourite on this album,the way that it opens with that guitar is superb and it's just so jolly."OO you" cool song(more guitar) "Momma miss america" superb bass playing(rock and roll spring tome take one)Sorry George but i loove! "Teddy boy" it's a nice little story and! gets better with every listen."Singalong junk" is one of my dad's favourites and he hardly knows any Paul McCartney songs."Maybe i'm amazed" is a big classic but not one of my favs,i think he wrote better songs but we'll beg to differ."Kreen-akrore" is pretty bad and onr i've never loved.Great album,cool debut and off he went.9/10 for it

Palash Ghosh <palash7@hotmail.com> (17.02.2001)

I've always loved this album, particularly its 'home-made' quality. The best cuts are 'Junk,' 'Oo you,' 'Teddy boy' (a Beatles reject) and of course the extraordinary, 'Maybe I'm amazed' (which would be more highly regarded if it had the glittering Beatles name attached to it. 'Maybe I'm amazed' is comparable to Badfinger's 'Day after day' in that they're both powerful, moving, gloriously soaring and tough love songs. I actually like Paul's arrangement here, each verse has a slightly different backing part.

Didier Dumonteil <dbdumonteil@wanadoo.fr> (11.03.2001)

In 1970,it was a severe disappointment.The critics didn't like it and who can blame them?Half of the tracks are half-baked (the instrumentals are all rubbish).Compared to the 1970 albums all things must pass JLPOB and let it be it's rather flabby.Even Ringo's beaucoups of blues was made with more care and respect for the public. There's one really great track"maybe I'm amazed",2 or 3 good ones (junk,every night,teddy boy) and here we are.

Ryan Maffei <chaucer@ix.netcom.com> (18.03.2002)

The story you include in your review about competition with Ringo says it all, George: this record is rushed, underdeveloped crap, and why it's so highly praised escapes me. Imagine hearing tunes like "Cry Baby Cry" and "Eleanor Rigby" from this guy during his tenure with the Beatles, and suddenly having an album released by him where a "highlight" is the dumb, redundant pseudo blues of "That Would Be Something".

Max Makovec <MaxMakovec@aol.com> (07.10.2002)

Oh, what to say about McCartney? Now, I agree with you that brilliant melodies are existing. But what with the arrangements and lyrics?

Bill Slocum <slokes@optonline.net> (19.02.2004)

A solid album only in retrospect - let's face it, when you have a ton of solo McCartney records to hold on to after this one, it doesn't annoy nearly so much as it must have done in 1970, when it was not only the only solo statement from McCartney (barring his soundtrack work on The Family Way film two years before) but the de jure reason for breaking up the Beatles. No one in 1970 knew the Fabs were history more because of Yoko and Allen Klein than "Kreen-Akrore," and McCartney's first venture into solodom would pay a price that it would take years to heal.

Simon Hearn <simon@leehearn.freeserve.co.uk> (14.09.99)

Hmm?.. It seems to me that on RAM Paul purposely abandoned the over production of Abbey Road and let the songs speak for themselves. This is not to slag off Abbey Road, of course - this albums just shows another side to Mccartney. 'Monkberry Moon Delight' shows he could still rock after he left the fab four and 'Uncle Albert' is typical mccartney - a sweet pop song that on this occasion manages to avoid the tweeness of subsequent efforts. This proves that Mccartney is one of the most melodic songwriters EVER.

Jason <Berny1956@aol.com> (21.09.99)

I remember reading somewhere RAM was like a hollow chocolate egg--smooth and enticing outside, but gooey and empty inside. bullshit. pure and utter human waste.

João Vargas <javargas@zaz.com.br> (26.12.99)

I like the off-the-cuff sound this album has. There are lots of neat production tricks and beautiful melodies. Paul's vocals are brilliant, and the guitar sound is interesting. That said, there are some things I don't like about this album: the lyrics seem constantly inane, and sometimes the production is too off the cuff: it sounds dangerously home made and unrehearsed in places. That said, I'd give it an 8.

Myris Collett <mcollett@ctlnet.com> (29.01.2000)

you're right on target great album. 'back seat of my car' is a great song. i give this album a 9

Patrick Niesink <spat@cyberus.ca> (01.02.2000)

I found your site while looking for reviews of McCartney's Ram, which I just heard for the first time. (I'm not that young, just busy!) You're dead right about it by the way. A wonderful, lighthearted album. The songs seem to flow out of McCartney almost effortlessly, and he seems to be really enjoying himself. "Ram On" just blew me away, and I can't get "Too Many People" out of my head, in spite of the stuck-up lyrics.

Jeff Blehar <jdb3@jhu.edu> (08.02.2000)

Well this one is just marvelous! Ram manages to sound simultaneously both off-the-cuff and slickly produced at once, and that is no mean feat. Now I can understand why the critics took their hatchets out on this one, as it's got little or no lyrical meaning - let's face it, songs like "Monkberry Moon Delight" and "Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey" exist for the sake of the music alone - but screw it! This is one of the only times where I'll happily pitch my reservations out the window and sink into the absolutely luxurious melodies and gorgeous production gimmicks. Other than "Monkberry Moon Delight" which never did a damn thing for me (I think the Zeppelinisms here are strained and phony sounding, unlike those on the wonderful bonus track "Oh Woman, Oh Why?"), there isn't really a wasted track on here: "Too Many People" is an absolute classic, with stinging guitar, wonderful melody lines, and a surprisingly incisive lyric that's only a faintly veiled attack on Lennon. "3 Legs" originally irked me, but now gets me bobbing my head, while "Ram On" is a beautiful ukelele tune that deserves its reprise (although there's no particular conceptual reason for its existence) - and note that McCartney launches into "Big Barn Bed" right at the end of the reprise. I just love picking things like that up! What else? Well, "Long Haired Lady" has the best melody on an album packed with them, while the two singles, "Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey" (the US choice) and "The Back Seat Of My Car" (the UK release) are both great production pieces. I actually prefer the latter, both because it's underexposed and because there's a certain desperation about it that's representative of not only this album but of all of McCartney's albums up to Band On The Run (where it's made into the explicit centerpiece).

Rose Mary <raponte@prtc.net> (17.02.2000)

NOW I CAN COME OUT OF THE CLOSET AND CONFESS HOW MUCH I LOVED THIS RAM ALBUM. HIGHLY UNDERRATED AND UNAPPRECIATED BY THE CRITICS, RAM MUST BE INCLUDED IN ANY TOP 20 ROCK/POP ALBUMS OF ALL TIME. GEMS LIKE 'MONKBERRY..', 'HEART OF THE COUNTRY' , 'TOO MANY PEOPLE', AND 'BACKSEAT OF MY CAR' ARE TRULY DELICIOUS ...

John Haubrich <jlhaubrich@netplus.net> (24.02.2000)

Agreed, All the way through this is one of Paul's best records. I first listened to it in 1971 and still get a charge out of it, especially "Dear Boy." Also, I remember playing 'Monkberry Moon Delight' for a Rolling Stones fan and he was utterly amazed that Paul was capable of such a good song (I, of course, reminded him that Paul wrote their first hit) I don't think enough people listened to this one all the way through enough times. It still is a lot of fun to listen to.

David McLeod <Kiskin1@aol.com> (17.07.2000)

Ram is a truly great album. I finally got the CD yesterday. Not having heard the complete album for several years, listening to it with fresh ears, I can only say that it is one of my favorite albums of all time.

Robert Tally <BtheW@aol.com> (02.08.2000)

This album is stylistically similar to McCartney, except that there are a lot more of what can be described as 'full-fledged' songs. In fact, I really find a higher number of them to be first-rate than I do on the earlier album. 'Too Many People' is one of the best slabs of pure pop I've ever heard. 'Heart Of The Country' is thoroughly infectious and has a nice rural homey feeling to it. 'Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey' is like a carnival ride of various catchy melodies. Those three are my favorites. I also think 'The Back Seat Of My Car' is first-rate. Let's see - what else? Well, I'd say 'Dear Boy' is a song that I should probably hate, but I can't deny it's melodic content and those background harmonies. And even though it's a 'ditty', 'Ram On' is succeeds quite well melodically and mood-wise. So does that other ditty - what's it called? - oh, yeah, 'Ram On'.

Brenden Majerech <b.majerech@uleth.ca> (24.10.2000)

I automatically give this album a 10.  And it's also the best music Paul was able to write after the break-up of the liverpudlians.

Sergey Zhilkin <sergey_jilkin@yahoo.com> (04.12.2000)

It's the first English-music album I listened to. I was about five years old or something about it. I didn't like it back in 1990 but when I was searching through my vynil (yeah, yeah, you heard right: non-USSR vynil disc. I think I should thank my grandpa - pilot of a plane (route USSR-USA)) discs a year ago I found it and relistened. Guess what I did right after that? Yes, I ran to the nearest CD-shop and bought licenced (!!!) copy. This is my only licenced disc till this day.

Dan Miller <m.miller1@tinyworld.co.uk> (07.12.2000)

Probably the most deceptive McCartney album. On first listen I found it rather unappealing, a bit of a mess really. Now Im in a different mind. Though none of the songs really stick out as McCartney classics, they are so cleverly crafted, multiple hooks woven together and sung with the kind of lunacy that I think only mccartney is capable of.

Palash Ghosh <palash7@hotmail.com> (23.02.2001)

I thoroughly agree that Ram is a stellar album, chock full of beautiful melodies, charming arrangements –- a veritable smorgasbord of supreme eccentric pop. But once again, Paul's lyrics betray an inanity that sometimes gets annoying. I don't get this, the man CAN write great lyrics with lots of meaning and feeling (i.e., 'Maybe I'm amazed' from the prior album), but he seems to avoid that and focus on third-person narratives. Still, you can't argue with the results.

Didier Dumonteil <dbdumonteil@wanadoo.fr> (11.03.2001)

The critical reaction was worse than for the previous one,being described as the nadir of rock by rolling stone and slagged off by melody maker.

Eric Rogozin <erogozin@mtu-net.ru> (07.03.2001)

I'm glad, that you and so many people on this site had fully appreciated this album, because critics tend to dislike this album for some unknown reason. And I agree: it's one of the best albums of Paul! I especially adore "Dear Boy" and "Monkberry Moon Delight", but all tunes here are awesome. And the fact, that the songs sound "home-made" gives a special charm. The opening track is frigging marvellous, so is "Heart Of The Country", so is "Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey", that was a single, and, of course, frigging great are two tracks mentioned above.

Ryan Maffei <chaucer@ix.netcom.com> (18.03.2002)

Damn you, McCartney! Some of these tunes still reek of underdevelopement, but here, Paul proves that with more than a month, he can come up with some damn fine songs. "Too Many People", "Dear Boy", "The Back Seat of My Car", "Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey", the hilarious "Monkberry Moon Delight"...all of these songs are so good, it's hard for me to bash McCartney in light of this record nowadays. An 8 from a craft standpoint (I don't find the filler to really be all that better than "Valentine Day"), but one of Macca's finest hours, certainly.

Max Makovec <MaxMakovec@aol.com> (19.10.2002)

Oh, this album is so full of brilliant ideas. The riff of "Ram On" or the wonderful hooks of "The Back Seat Of My Car". You're right, George, music should impress, but for me, there's one more thing than only good ideas neccessary: solid arrangements!! It doesn't disturb me that the lyrics (apart from "Too Many People") are silly or even absolutely senseless, the only thing I miss are more complex, professional arrangements. That's only not the case in the wonderful "Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey", especially the first one. I reaches the state of a real classic because of its beautiful and sad melody and also its incredible atmospheric arrangement.

CB Neal <obscure@tds.net> (05.03.2003)

The contrast on this album is very clear: it's either chocolate or it's crap.  The standouts "Too Many People", " Ram on" (1&2), "Uncle Albert", "Heart of the Country"  and maybe "Smile Away" are each either great or at least 'engaging' (which come to think of it--and afer reading the other commentaty--is really McCartney's bar. He may soar way above it of fall somewhat below it. The stuff that does hit the bar seldom challenges the higher brain enough to be classics.  He can engage your attention, but--think "Smile Away"--he really doesn't do too much with it once he's got it.)  The rest of Ram shows how important editing and reserve can be.  Forgettable or awful.  The bombast of "Back Seat of My Car" should only be done by Meat Loaf.  Hail Meat Loaf!

Carla Marie Sams <carlasams@stanley355.freeserve.co.uk> (18.01.2004)

This is without doubt my fav Paul album.I got it on c.d when i was 16 and always loved it.Too many people is a fantastic song and even though it lays into Lennon is still one of the best songs he wrote. '3 Legs' is a great little number, as is 'Ram on'. 'Dear Boy' for harmonies is excellent its very Beach Boys and you always find sumthing new going on. 'Uncle Albert' is fantastic from start to finish.The way it goes through all the different cord changes and tempos is brilliant.other standout tracks are 'Heart of the country', 'Monkberry moon delight', and 'The Back Seat of My Car' which is like a little rock opera. He plays excellent on this album, as does the rest of the band.A one that has stood the test of time.

Josh Fitzgerald <Joshsf@aol.com> (24.05.99)

Can't say I agree 100% with you, but you are right about the critics who hated it. The main thing about this album though is that it's reaaaaally weird & different from average Paul albums. "Mumbo" is, well, pointless. Are the lyrics in English?!?!? Or some crazy Asian language? Or are they just stuff from Paul's broad imagination? Guess we'll never know. "Bip Bop" is especially crazed, with some hoarse, but interesting vocals from Denny. Not a bad song, but overlong. "Love Is Strange" is the best cover song Paul has ever recorded, (and that includes covers he did w/The Beatles)."Wild Life" is also too long. And Paul's vocals must have tortured his throat. I think he's try too hard to sound like John. I agree that "Some People Never Know" is the best song, and should have been a hit. That's one song that deserves to be 6 minutes. Never did like "I Am Your Singer". Particularly Linda's vocals (sorry Paul). "Tommorow" is a nice little pop song. "Dear Friend" is alright, but it's just too long, again at 6 minutes. While it IS underrated, I really can't give it more than a 7.

Jeff Blehar <jdb3@jhu.edu> (08.02.2000)

This is a severe misstep, in my opinion. Even if it's not the travesty its often made out to be. Still, the sound of an artist struggling with his muse is palpable as on the last album, and it makes for a few good moments. NOT among those are "Mumbo" and "Bip Bop," two of the worst excuses for rockers I've ever heard from anyone - badly produced (as indeed this entire album is; the only well-produced song, "Dear Friend," is an outtake from Ram, natch) and pointless, they really hurt the album (and they're reprised! WHY?). "Wild Life" is a stupid, tuneless song, and Paul is at his most excruciating vocally (which is hard for him to be, warm happysinger that he is). "I Am Your Singer" is merely undistinguished. So why give Wings Wild Life (and check the album - the word "Wings" is bizarrely enough included in the title) the time of day? Because, as George said, "Some People Never Know" is an impressive, if underproduced suitelike song (though Linda's singing almost ruins this song, as well as many of the others on the album, for me. Thankfully she'd never be so vocally prominent again.) "Love Is Strange" is a hot little cover, while "Dear Friend" is simply devastating. McCartney recorded it back in early 1971 during the Ram sessions when Lennon was taking shots at him in the press, but declined to release it, choosing the subtler "Too Many People" instead. But then came Imagine and "How Do You Sleep?," and so McCartney let this see the light of day. Nothing else he ever wrote conveys such shocked hurt and betrayal. It's a very simple song, but all the more powerful for it. Nevertheless (and despite the bonus tracks, which I quite like) I can't give this any more than a 5/10; the band is too unpracticed, McCartney's voice is strained, most of the compositions are lacking, and Linda's voice just annoys the bejeezus outta me.

Robert Tally <BtheW@aol.com> (02.08.2000)

This is one of those albums where I have to really strain to think of positive things to say. If it weren't for 'Love Is Strange' (which was actually a hit for Mickey and Sylvia - not Buddy Holly), side one would be a total travesty. As it is, I do kind of enjoy 'Love Is Strange', perhaps more than the songs on side two, which are at least passable in most cases. In fact, I think the most solid track on the album is 'Bip Bop Link' (the short instrumental version, not the total joke of a song on side one). It's really quite a nice little piece. 'Some People Never Know' has a little bit of inspired melody sandwiched between some not-so-inspired melody. 'Dear Friend' is redundant in the extreme, and melodically not worth the time spent on it. 'I Am Your Singer' and 'Tomorrow' are just simply mediocre. I'm hoping to never have to listen to the title track again. 'Mumbo'? Let's see - there's kind of a funky little thing on there that the guitars do that I kinda like. Otherwise, I'm baffled by its existence. 'Mumbo Link'? Well, it's short, anyway.

Bob Josef <Trfesok@aol.com> (14.09.2000)

The reason that "Mumbo" is so hideous is that the track was totally improvised as the tapes were rolling! It's typical of the attitude behind the album -- Paul just wanted to be informal, laid-back, as on the previous two -- but he just got a little TOO laid-back, so much so that a rather sloppy product escaped. I haven't heard the whole thing in a long time, and I don't think I want to again. However, they really missed the boat by not releasing "Love Is Strange" as a single -- it got a lot of FM airplay (as least in Boston) and was good enough to cross over to AM Top Forty.

<Potusa1980@aol.com> (16.01.2001)

Dude, what about "Tomorrow"? That song is so cleverly written i could have sworn it was a beatles tune when i was a kid. Of course the last 30 seconds where Paul goes Otis Redding might have been a little too much, but that song deserves a little bit o' recognition. Also try harmonizing to "dear friend". It'll make tears drop from your eyes. I guarantee it.

Michael J. West <msclguru@email.unc.edu> (16.02.2001)

You know, George, I bought this album on your recommendation, but having heard it I must agree with the critics who hated it. It's not horribly, horribly, abomination-upon-our-land bad, but that's mostly because it's so light, weak, and underdone that it's barely there at all.

Palash Ghosh <palash7@hotmail.com> (23.02.2001)

Wild Life sounds like something Paul recorded in his living room on the spur of the moment with some friends who came over. Despite its under-production and general paucity of lyrical ideas, Paul still manages to come up with some pleasant enough songs. My faves are 'I Am Your Singer' (give it a chance, folks, it has a nice melody and subtle chord shifts), 'Tomorrow' (I LIKE the Otis Redding-like part at the end); 'Some People Never Know' ( another unheralded McCartney masterpiece) and the great cover version of 'Love Is Strange.'

Didier Dumonteil <dbdumonteil@wanadoo.fr> (11.03.2001)

Six months between Ram and this one and when you hear it,you can't help but thinking it was made too hastily.Take "love is strange":written by Mickey Baker" and sung by the duet "Mickey and Sylvia"  .I wish everybody could hear the wonderful Buddy Holly rendition:I had always thought it was a lousy ditty and I changed my mind overnight.Paul definitely botched the job.

Eric Rogozin <erogozin@mtu-net.ru> (11.04.2001)

Critics usually bash it, but this record is very decent. The title track is the best song here, it's very cool and also it was always groovy performed live. "Dear Friend" is a nice ballad, two instrumentals are marvellous. I like this stuff; everything, that Paul makes, is awesome.

<Skeet6167@aol.com> (17.04.2001)

Great album. Obviously not as KICKASS as Ram or Band, but definetely not a throwaway as the "critics" made it out to be. Paul just wasn't in the mood at the time to write songs for albums of that par. He just wanted to show his fans what direction his music was taking AT THAT POINT IN TIME. The opener "Mumbo" proves Paul could write a cool melody without well thought out lyrics. "Bip Bop" gets annoying after awhile, but "Love is Strange" is pretty dope for a cover song; love the "la la la la la la" part. "Some People Never Know" and "Wild Life" are bit too long but no complaints other than the length of these tracks. "I Am Your Singer" should have been sung by Paul, but its catchy and has a phat bass line. It scores brownie points for being brief. Has it occured to anyone that "Tomorrow" on this album has the exact same chords as "Yesterday"? Pretty neat huh? Linda could have overdubbed her voice on there a zillion times----i think its a jewel. And George is right, "Dear Friend" is minimalistic, but effective. It IS like "Imagine", but in a minor key. I love smokin out to this album. I have it on vinyl but I recommend the extra bonus tracks cd. More Mac for your mullah. "Can you dig it?"

Ryan Maffei <chaucer@ix.netcom.com> (19.03.2002)

This is an uneven start for the ever-changing Wings group, essentially a 9-year format for McCartney to make lightweight pop and not get flak for it as an artist. Speaking as a biased schmuck, I think it's brave of me to admit that the fluid rock jamming of "Mumbo" is good, although as a song, it's underwritten...but overall, side one is the misstep. These little freeform studio bits may've seemed fun at the time, but they just don't work as album tracks--"Bip Bop" is the worst thing McCartney ever sat down and wrote, while the pleasant title track is too overtly preachy to be completely admirable as a piece. And "Love is Strange" comes off as rather slight. But the second side is a remarkably good set of actual, crafted songs: "Some People Never Know" is Paul's best work since the Beatle Boys, and the remainder of the tunes are quite enjoyable, if slight. A six.

Max Makovec <MaxMakovec@aol.com> (26.10.2002)

This album is, indeed, not the best album Wings ever produced. Almost every song is much too long, there's too much filler on it, and sometimes the singings are sometimes a bit too experementative. The hysterical shouting on "Mumbo", the high croaking on "Bip Bop" or the aggressive singing on the horrible bonus track "Oh Woman Oh Why" do not work the slightest bit.

PIANET <pianet@wanadoo.fr> (18.09.2003)

Just a little piece of adviece: give "be bop" and "mama's little girl" another chance. Might say the same for run devil run and the unplugged. Even if i don't agree (and sometimes i don't agrre at all with you ) on certain albums or songs, you've made a brilliant site!

Pedro Andino <pedroandino@msn.com> (20.10.2003)

macca was drunk out of his mind! what the hell does mumbo mean? oh mumbo! oh teta! te amo! callate! SINVERGUENZA! TEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEETA! SORRY THAT'S JUST ME! HE WATCHED A LOT OF FAT ALBERT! HEY HEY HEY! MACCA MUSTA SMOKED THE WACKY WEED! MONGO! YOU YELLOW BELLY COWARD! BIP BOP! OY! OY VEY! MACCA WHAT THE FUCK ARE DOIN'?! HA HA HA HA HA HA! JUST JOKES MAN!

Bill Slocum <slokes@optonline.net> (04.04.2004)

This was very definitely a "marking time" album, the sort that don't get made anymore because recording artists today generally take a couple of years off, more often three, before releasing albums. Back in the 1970s, you were expected to give the audience annual product or run the risk of being forgotten.

e3s8 <e3s8@kirkco.org> (10.11.2005)

I know you weren't too hard on this album, George, but you still said it's Wings' worst record and wrote it off as lightweight. How someone who LOOOVES the Ramones first album, can't get behind the stripped, down, off-the-cuff, utterly non-pretentious slab of rock-groove that is "Mumbo" is beyond me. You say Paul doing the Primal Scream sounds like a mess, but to me it just sounds funky. Or even better: Dirty (the same word Paul used to describe 'Helter Skelter'). Like an old Howlin' Wolf record. Paul's just screaming out rocking nonsense and throwing out a few phat hooks, starting off in mid-jam, not giving a shit if this is a big or grand opener. That's what's so fresh about "Mumbo" when it flicks on to life. And unlike other spontaneous-sounding albums, this album was really just recorded like that. You said the Stones' BLACK & BLUE might just be jams, but they're "the jams of the gods" (that might be paraphrasing). Well, I consider 1964-1975 McCartney to be a likewise god and tracks like "Mumbo", "Bip Bop" and "Wild Life" are his divine jams. Sure, "Wild Life" goes on a little too long, but is that a problem if you love Paul's thumpin', slide-and-slip bass or his rough and fevered "Oh Darlin'"-style vocals? PLASTIC ONO BAND is always getting props for being a "precursor to punk". Then why not WILD LIFE? Because Paul wasn't singing about "important things"? That's like saying the Ramones are less punk or valid because they weren't singing about "important things" like The Clash. With WILD LIFE, McCartney (two years younger than John) was finally getting to THAT Primal Scream point in his life. The point when he just said "fuck it. I'm not even trying to write Sgt. Pepper or Hey Jude. I'm breaking it all down." You gave the Ramones such credit for breaking it all down without being pretentious, so why not give McCartney equal credit. The fact that he can still come up with beautiful little pop songs like "Some People Never Know" and "Tomorrow" (as melodic as anything in the McCartney canon) while he's in breaking down, toss-off mode just shows how pure the man's talent was. Lennon was a genius but he had to really WORK at it, even in his prime. When McCartney was in his prime, his genius was effortless. WILD LIFE is a testament to this. And don't get me wrong, I love PLASTIC ONO BAND, but I think after we get past a few generations of music-fans who never read a Rolling Stone Magazine review, WILD LIFE will be viewed as the album that aged better (this has already happened with McCARTNEY and RAM in many indi-rock quarters). I'd also like to point out that WILD LIFE includes "Dear Friend" which is just as stark and emotional as anything on PLASTIC ONO BAND. It could very well be the darkest song McCartney ever penned/recorded.

João Vargas <javargas@zaz.com.br> (26.12.99)

Finally, a more carefully produced Paul album. It's pretty lightweight, but that's not a bad thing! 'One More Kiss' is entertaining, 'Big Barn Bed' is cool, and 'Single Pigeon' sounds like he's laughing at himself. The medley is great, with lots of great songs which would probably have sounded pretty weak on their own. But the real gem is 'Little Lamb Dragon fly'. It has great melody lyrics, harmonies, and production.THIS should have been the single, and not the over-sweet 'My Love'. I'd give this album a 7.

Jeff Blehar <jdb3@jhu.edu> (08.02.2000)

Well George, I have to say that your prog-rock theory is somewhat silly - you're trying to apply your knowledge in a field you're quite familiar with (prog-rock) onto a template which simply won't fit. Besides, McCartney and Glyn Johns (engineer on the sessions) have a given in interviews a much different explanation for the sound of Red Rose Speedway: Paul's continued search for acceptance by the hip press led him to experiment around with ideas he tried during his tenure with The Beatles. Indeed, it's not a long jump from the spring-abuse of "Wild Honey Pie" to the instrumental "Loup (1st Indian On The Moon)," nor is the medley which ends the album anything more than a less successful attempt at imitating The Long Medley from Abbey Road. It was created under similar circumstances as well; McCartney had a few songs lying around from back in 1971 and '72, and instead of trying to flesh them out into 3:00 pieces, he medleyed them. Unfortunately, the results aren't that inspiring, chiefly because the songs are of lesser caliber.

Robert Tally <BtheW@aol.com> (04.08.2000)

I've always thought of this album as being sort of in-between Wild Life and Band On The Run - and I don't just mean chronologically. It's certainly better than the earlier effort, but it pales in comparison to the latter. For me, the best song would have to be 'Big Barn Bed', which could have easily been an a-side, but serves its purpose well as a catchy album-opener. I also enjoy 'One More Kiss', and think McCartney had a particular gift for these gentle country ballads. I'm also quite partial to 'Loup (1st Indian On The Moon)' if only because I don't hear anything wrong with it. It serves its purpose well.

Teresa Juarez Guzman <ggr74017@prodigy.net.mx> (26.11.2000)

No, "george"?, you're not the only one to go nuts over the final verse in this album. This is one of my all time best loved albums, along with Ram. In fact, I've arranged my CD player to switch "Big Barn Bed" to "I Lie Around" as the first track! This is the first time I read (what I think they should be) fair reviews of Paul McCartney: by a fan who can go beyond the pop formality without the "Beatles-should-have-stayed-together" cliché. You know? They used to play "silly love songs" together also.

Sergey Zhilkin <sergey_jilkin@mail.ru> (29.11.2000)

I must have misuderstood something. Eight?! OK, let's start from the beginning. Firstly, we have to admit that this album was a breakthrough for Paul because all his previous efforts (and what good efforts!) were overlooked (oh, better to say 'much underrated'). 'My love' took the first place in the charts and this was hailed as McCartney's COMEBACK (though, in my opinion, there was no goaway). True, the song is very good and it deserves to be the best one here (instead of 'Little lamb dragonfly'). Now I'd like to argue with you about 'Lamb'. Well, I've just read the lyrics of this song... Nothing to say. I mean that they are surely better than AC/DC's ones but Paul doesn't open his heart when he sings 'Lamb' and the lyrics seem dull. By the way, the lack of straightforwardness is Paul's greatest minus. David Bowie (I really believe in what I say) could sing 'Lamb' better because he always makes good song out of good lyrics. But if you open another category called 'song with the best lyrics', 'Lamb' will take the first place there. Oh, I forgot to say that the song itself was written when Paul and Linda failed to save little lamb on the farm (it was born too weak) from it's death (So your 'brilliant' idea should go to ...err... something deep (please, don't be offended, OK?)).

Palash Ghosh <palash7@hotmail.com> (23.02.2001)

Red Rose Speedway COULD have been a great album, but it's got too many weak spots.

Didier Dumonteil <dbdumonteil@wanadoo.fr> (11.03.2001)

Side two sounds like a caricature of Abbey road.IMHO,one of Paul's weakest efforts that would have made a good single:"little lamb dragonfly" b/w "single pidgeon".

<Skeet6167@aol.com> (17.04.2001)

Red Rose Speedway is very iffy. Doesnt have the homey quality of his first solo LP's but enjoyable nonetheless--there's just something so commercial about it--I cant put my finger on it. "Hands of Love" was hands down the most infectious song Paul wrote for this record (if he even did----sounds so beatle-y I cant help but sing it over and over and over....been stuck in my head all month). The "by I love you so, 'by I love you so-o" in "Power Cut" was cool. Henry McColough's solos are vastly underrated too. "Little Lamb" was also a great tune that went unnoticed, it isn't "too long" either. This album deserves an 8, if not 7 at best. Does anyone know what the Braille on the back of the LP says? (As far as I remember, it's some sort of 'we love you' addressed to Stevie Wonder - G.S.).

Ryan Maffei <chaucer@ix.netcom.com> (20.03.2002)

Paul is a stunningly inconsistent fellow--he delivers some incredible pop masterpieces in the Beatles that are never to be topped; he then leaves and gives us a mere one with his first solo album; he pens about a side-and-a-half's worth of solid material with Ram; then a side's worth with Wild Life. Now, on Red Rose Speedway, he improves his production just a tad, but stretches his writing abilities out in such a way that each song sounds equally slight and underdeveloped. Sure, maybe there's a minor classic in the form of "My Love", but even that comes off as a bit cloying, and every other song sounds really underwritten, almost banal at times (see the closing medley, or even the bonus track "C Moon"). Any potential seems to have been sacrificed for premature completion; thus, this affable, but unworthy of Ram and Band on the Run, outing amounts to a low, argumentative 6. Pity.

Max Makovec <MaxMakovec@aol.com> (31.10.2002)

Hey, how did you rate it? "Simply Excellent"? You're absolutely right, this album is a masterpiece with all its catchy, experimentative and charming tunes and wonderful mlodies and ideas. Oh, and this time around Paul has some creative musicians with him, which causes that this album sounds much more grown-up than the "home-made"-stuff. And not enough with this: every track has the right length. I haven't got the problem anymore of sitting around and waiting - near to despair - of that damned song to end . which I often had on Red's predecessors.

Dan Hogg <dantheman_sg27@hotmail.com> (22.06.2003)

Finding this album was a bit harder than I thought. Good thing I have it now, it serves as an important link from the sloppy Wild Life (which I don't have, nor do I plan on getting it anytime soon) to Band on the Run. It's a good album, but it suffers from trying a bit too hard to sound complex or Beatlesque or whatever. It works on "Little Lamb Dragonfly", which has two different segments, each melodic and emotional. It's a better medley than the actual Medley. I don't know, I just don't think the parts flow that well. "Hands of Love" is a nice acoustic singalong, but sticks out in its context. "Hold me Tight" is a bit too repetitive, and the other two are all right. Elsewhere, we have the decent country ballad "One More Kiss", the short throwaway "Single Pigeon", and the bizarre experiment "Loup". "When the Night" might annoy some, but I dig the "4/4 waltz" and the harmonies. Rockers? Yeah we got some. "Big Barn Bed" is tons of fun, a good old stomper. "Get on the Right Thing" takes forever to get started, but when it does, it rocks. Oh, almost forgot "My Love". Me no like. Way too sickingly sweet for me.

<pnew@juno.com> (03.01.2004)

OK...here's my theory.....Red Rose Speedway is really the influence for The Who's quadrophenia. Don't believe me? Listen to the Medley with it's FOUR separate melodic themes being established separately then later being played in unison at the end of the Medley. Just like Pete did on Quad. Maybe not.......Is it just me or does the line in 'Little Lamb Dragonfly', "Sometimes you think that life is hard, and this is only one of them" grammatically bad and nonsensical.

Josh Fitzgerald <Joshsf@aol.com> (16.05.99)

Grrreat!! At times, slightly repititious, but loads of fun. Sounds like it was meant to be a concept album, but fails. Anyway, I find "Picasso's Last Words" a bit overlong, and overdone, to the point of having about three different songs in one song. But, I have a fondness for "Mamunia", and the opening organ solo for "Let Me Roll It" is gorgeous! "Bluebird", real good!! "Helen Wheels", never get sick of it. And is there anyone who agrees with me that "No Words" is too short! Well, like any album, it has it's flaws, but it's still really good.

Simon Hearn <simon@leehearn.freeserve.co.uk> (14.09.99)

THE album that reinstated his greatness in the public's psyche. 'Jet' is just pulsating and the rest of the collection is equally well written and performed. This album shows mccartney's strength as a pop writer and his grasp of hooklines. This album showed the ex-beatle had an individual identity. We all should bow down at the feet of a master and remember him for this album, not his 80's purile output.

Ben Greenstein <bgreenstein@nctimes.net> (25.10.99)

I really don't see what makes this album so great. I mean - it's got some solid melodies (in fact, pretty much every track except that stupid "Helen Wheels" ditty is nice n' poppy), but there's no coherence of any kind. It's just a collection of songs. And not all of them are THAT good - "Mamunia" and "Bluebird" sound weak when placed next to classics like the title track and "Jet," or that "Mrs. Vandebilt" song that I like for some reason. I don't remember "1985" as being that great, but keep in mind that I always get bored with the album around the seventh track or so. So I'll try to check it some time in the near future. Regardless of whether I end up loving it or not, the album gets a seven.

Mats Fjäll <mats.fjall@telia.com> (28.11.99)

I agree mostly with you but I think it's overrated.

João Vargas <javargas@zaz.com.br> (26.12.99)

Woohoo! This is good stuff. An album which deal mostly with themes of escape and liberty, there are no bad songs on this. Three of the songs are collections of fragments ('Band On The Run', 'Picasso's Last Words', and '1985'), with the final piece of 'Band On The Run' being one of Macca's most brilliant pure pop songs. 'Let Me Roll It' is very cool, with that unforgettable guitar riff and those echoed vocals. To keep from enthusing about all the tracks and wasting space, let me just rave a little over 'Bluebird'. This is Paul's most beautiful love song EVER! I love every minute of it! Go Paul! This album gets a 10, definetly.

Myris Collett <mcollett@ctlnet.com> (29.01.2000)

i agree with josh 'no words' is to short. 'jet' is a masterpiece. great album

Jeff Blehar <jdb3@jhu.edu> (09.02.2000)

Hmm...I just don't have as much to say about Band On The Run as compared to the other albums from the 70's, probably because it's the one most often commented on. I think it's a tad overrated, however. Only a tad, though. A solid 9. Now me, I don't give two hoots about conceptualism coming from my ex-Beatles, because that's not their forte, but BOTR manages to hold a loose theme together, and if anything it's the underlying mood of the previous four albums made explicit - desperation, scrambling for critical acceptance and happiness. You see, Paul wants to be loved! But he also doesn't want to take any shit, thus tracks like "Mrs. Vandebilt," which is a great, neglected song. There's no point in even talking about "Band On The Run" or "Jet" (which is apparently about his pet black labrador, apropos of absolutely nothing) - they're great pop-rockers, and there's little else to say. It's the smaller songs on the album which I truly enjoy, though, like "Mrs. Vandebilt," "Bluebird" (alright, so that was a big radio hit, but still, it SEEMS small and intimate) and especially the Denny Laine co-credit "No Words." For some peculiar reason, this is currently my favorite song on the album. It's really nothing more than a fragment, but what a beautiful one! That McCartney falsetto soul singing? To quote an annoying Yessong, "We Have Heaven!"

Rich Bunnell <taosterman@yahoo.com> (24.02.2000)

Yeesh, Ben really doesn't like this album, seeing that he's seen fit to post basically the exact same negative comment on three separate review pages. Me, I just sit back and be entertained by the cool melodies, except for that boring Picasso song, which sucks. Sure, the first two songs overlap everything else on the album ("Jet" has got to have at least seven or eight hooks alone), but that's no reason to insult the rest of the album. "Mrs. Vanderbilt" and "Helen Wheels" are good too--perhaps the latter's a bit stupid and un-Macca-esque but it doesn't impede any sense of fun. And "1985"--disco piano pop? Love it! 8/10

Darren Bowers <bowers@inetworld.net> (17.06.2000)

This is as close Paul ever got to reclaiming the throne he once held as one of the best musician's of all time. Although it never reaches the level of the best Beatles albums, it's still a masterpiece. To bad this was his last great effort up to this point. Everything else he released after the Beatles just seems a little lackluster except for this album. It's unfortunate that he didn't maintain this level of creativity through the rest of his career up to this point. Goes to show there is definitely something lacking in his creative force without his partner Lennon. Where Lennon was the master with lyrics and wit, Paul was the master of melody. Combined, they were the best musical partners of all time, but separately they fall short. Each of them needed some creative input from the other to make good songs classics. A good thing to do is listen to each Lennon's and Pauls solo efforts, then try to imagine them working these solo songs into Beatles classics. It's just a shame that they had a falling out, I fell confident that they would have made strong Beatles albums for at least twenty more years. Highlights on the album would be the title song, "Bluebird," "Let me roll it," "Jet," and "Helen wheels." the overall feel of the album is that it's reaching maybe just a little to hard to achieve greatness but just falls somewhat short. Again, if the other three Beatles had had participated in the recording, this would be without a doubt one of the best albums of all time. But there I go dreaming again. Best out of 10. I would give this album an 8. And that's being pretty generous.

mjcarney <mjcarney@netzero.net> (23.07.2000)

Band on the Run,(Paul's best album of his own music) is one album that has its great moments, but it is nowhere near as good as what people make it out to be.  This doesn't mean that it is all bad it just has a TON OF FILLER!!  For instance, the hit single "Helen Wheels" is a rudimentary, boring piece of garbage--it goes nowhere and was popular because of Paul's name only (a la "My Love").  "Picasso's Last Words"--written in an hour and including a reprise (reggae) of Jet is just plain awful.  It has Paul's catchiness, but boy does that song drag--how many times can we hear the chorus. Maybe Paul could have used some help w/ Lennon here.  "Let Me Roll It" which some say was a shot back at Lennon for his "How Do You Sleep" attack, falls flat, and sounds like filler--with a surprisingly forced melody.  "Bluebird" is typical, lovey-dovey Paul at his sappiest.  And yes this is a straight away love song--how could you miss that one?  "You're A Bluebird"--how stupid can you get, absolutely horrible Paul's done much worse though.  Finally, the last bit of filler, is "Mrs. Vanderbilt".  Despite the obvious filler quality to this song, it is actually quite good.  Catchy, rocking, rudimentary, classic Paul McCartney filler(it probably took him 15 minutes to write) but it is good filler were the others were not. "No Words" is a strong non-filler track on here, although somewhat too slick for my tastes,but I can't deny the strong melody. Now,despite its filler (50%), there are some great tracks.  "Band on The Run" is a classic, epic track sounding somewhat like "Admiral  Halsey"--meeting with lennon's "Happiness is a Warm Gun".  "Jet"--which thank you, I didn't know was about his dog--is another rocking classic.  No one in there right mind can tire of these two.  "Mamunia" is Paul in a typical, laid back phase here, with a great African feel too it.  It is just refreshing and like the rest of the album has a strong melody.  Finally, the brilliant "Nineteen...." ends the album in fine form--and is probably Paul's best solo moment.  Despite its filler, it is an engaging record, the filler is produced and segmented together to sound larger than life for the first 20+ listens.  The album wears that mystique quickly though, but I would still rate it a 7/10.  If you haven't bought this--or even if you have--I would highly reccommend the 25th Anniversary release, it solidifies the sound better, and the interview/demo disc is magnificent. Anyway if you get that disc, it would raise the album up to an 8/10, simply because the demos and stories add so much to the material, but w/out it the album is just a little above average.

Robert Tally <BtheW@aol.com> (07.08.2000)

This is definitely my favorite McCartney album. The thing that really stands out about it is that every song is - at the very least - a good song. Sure, there are a few that stylistically aren't what I tend to listen to (which, to an extent, is true of all McCartney music), but there really isn't anything wrong with any of these songs. I don't normally go for jazzy-sounding ballads like 'Bluebird' or arena-rock stuff like 'Jet', but both songs do exactly what they're meant to do. 'Let Me Roll It' could actually be a little more dynamic (if perhaps it wasn't Paul on drums), but it's a good solid tune. 'Mamunia' is something I have to be in the mood for. 'Picasso's Last Words' is, I think, one of Paul's best songs, though I think the second half is pretty inconsistent.

Tammy-jo ennett <ennetttammy@hotmail.com> (18.10.2000)

This album is the McCartney and Wings album I've ever heard, also his most famous one too.My favourite songs on Band on the run are 'Mamnuia', 'Band on the run', 'Jet', 'Let me roll it' and 'Helen Wheels', this definitely sounds like it should've been a Beatles album, I have the version with the 2 remastered bonus tracks; 'Helen Wheels' and 'Country Dreamer'. 'Country Dreamer' sounds like it could've been from The White ALbum it's that good, Anyways, if you don't have this one, you should buy it soon, it's very addictive, Paul rocks!

Sergey Zhilkin <sergey_jilkin@mail.ru> (21.12.2000)

B-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-nd on the r-u-u-u-u-n! The best album Paul's ever produced? Maybe. But, actually, I don't understand it'd purpose. Though, it doesn't matter. The main problem (or dilemma?) is that 'Band on the run' isn't so cozy, rockin' and charming as, say, RAM. It sounds more commercial than home-made RAM. Every track here is terrific but I can't see any connections with these songs (well, except 'Picasso's last words' where you hear a bit from 'Jet' and 'Mrs Vanderbilt', but, frankly speaking, it doesn't make any atmosphere(for me, at least)). Surely, it gets 10/10 without any questions, but RAM is twice better. Why? Because of one little word - 'atmosphere'.

Palash Ghosh <palash7@hotmail.com> (23.02.2001)

Band on the Run was a landmark album for Paul McCartney -- it marked the moment when his solo work was finally received favorably by the critics, and Wings became a big-time, heavier-sounding, arena-filling supergroup. As such, Band was the peak, and, quality-wise, there was no way to go but down.

Didier Dumonteil <dbdumonteil@wanadoo.fr> (11.03.2001)

Here,Paul was on the right track again.I  don't rate it as high as Ram but this is lush,dynamic stuff.'Let me roll it' is a long-delayed answer to JL's acrimonious attacks.Paul mimics the POB sound,that of "cold turkey" with wit and humor.Technically it's a perfect production,complete with a reprise of the title track .What's the use of worrying? he asked in "Mrs Vanderbilt",....and PDQ answered "no use."

Eric Rogozin <erogozin@mtu-net.ru> (07.03.2001)

What a greatness! It's the most famous album of Paul McCartney and certainly one of his best. I adore this album. It has some feeling of conceptual album. It seems to me, that the songs here are heartfelt and genuine (I think the same about fast all McCartney's songs, in spite of some other people think). The title track is cool with its three parts, fluently slipped into each other;

Michael J. West <msclguru@email.unc.edu> (30.03.2001)

Every now and then, I pick this up, thinking to myself as I put it in the CD player, "I bet this isn't nearly as good as I remember it." And sometimes "Band on the Run" gets me going, sometimes it doesn't; but I've never gotten to the first bellowing of the word "JET!" without thinking, "My GOD this is a great song!" Then "Bluebird" comes along and is so lovely that I decide, "Oh, wow. This is a fantastic album."

<Skeet6167@aol.com> (17.04.2001)

BAND ON THE RUN IS JUST AS MUCH A CONCEPT ALBUM AS ANY OF PAUL'S OTHER ALBUMS----and how come Dustin Hoffman didn't receive co-credit for writing Picasso? Splendid piece of work, if you keep in mind what the man had to go thru to get this baby finished. Paid off tremendously. Imagine if Paul decided to scrap the whole thing? He wouldn't get half the cred he receives now--it resurrected his career--then and for all time. What's that sweet stuff he's singing about in "1985"? If you don't have it, get it.

Glenn Wiener <glennjwiener@hotmail.com> (05.07.2001)

As stated before, this is a solid release by Paul. There are many creative arrangements and hooks loaded in many of the songs most notably the title track, '1985', and 'Mrs. Vanderbilt'. However as pleasant as 'Bluebird' and 'Picasso’s Last Words' are melody wise, lyrically both these songs seem to run out of gas as the fadeouts offer no extra creative embellishments. There is some good guitar and bass work on 'Let Me Roll It' but unfortunately this is more the exception than the rule on this and any other of Paul’s releases. Overall, its good, probably Paul’s best, but a classic work…I think not!

Ryan Maffei <chaucer@ix.netcom.com> (20.03.2002)

If Band on the Run is a classic, it's an unbearably slight classic--I have the same problem with Lennon's solo records, which are occasionally rather slim in craft or melody, etc. But McCartney's fifth is certainly an incomparably great solo record, filled with more memorable pop tunes than one could fathom, excellent production for a self-produced recording, and an overall winning feel to the whole brew. Seriously, a winning feel. And if it's McCartney's parody record, than it achieves further brilliance, although I've always appreciated "Let Me Roll It" as a great song rather than a scathingly effective Lennon parody, and "Bluebird" as well in the same light (supposedly McCartney's parody on himself and his lightweight approach to writing). Anyway, slight or not, there are more effective tunes on here than on, well, every other McCartney record combined, and it certainly deserves kudos for being the sole time Paul chose to thoroughly excercise his gift over the course of one album. Lennon's Imagine doesn't come close to being better--for once, Paul trumps John! A nine.

Bruno Müller <muller@ccard.com.br> (17.05.2002)

The best album from an ex-Beatle. Harrison’s All Things Must Pass is sometimes named the best but, despite its many great songs, it’s not even nearly as perfect as this one from the Wings. It’s Paul’s masterpiece, one of the best rock albums ever made. From the marvelous opening title track up to the very end, not a single second is wasted. Not a single note off key. Paul’s finest hour as a player, singer and composer. ALL the songs are great. This is a perfect album.

Bob Josef <Trfesok@aol.com> (19.05.2002)

By far the best McCartney album. The major reason: Paul took as much care here with the production as George Martin did with the Beatles albums -- the ambition behind Abbey Road finally resurfaced. The songwriting is also the most coherent thing Paul had yet done post-Beatles. The highly detailed production does disguise the fact that the lyrics are rather haphazard at time ("Mamunia"? "Mrs. Vanderbilt"? "Jet"? What are the songs supposed to be about?), but the melodies are superb, so you can at least enjoy the nonsensical wordplay. And there's none of the cloying sentimentality of "My Love" or "Silly Love Songs" here, which marred a lot of Paul's solo career. Essential for any Beatles fan.

Bruno Müller <muller@ccard.com.br> (22.05.2002)

Reading the comments about this album, I couldn’t help to notice that most people seem to forget about its great diversity. So, unlike I said before, there’s something else to be said about this one. First of all: “repetitive” is the only word that can’t be attached to it.

Dan Hogg <dantheman_sg27@hotmail.com> (08.07.2002)

Wings' most famous album, but sometimes I don't consider this their best album. It's either this or Venus and Mars. Even now, I'm undecided. So I'll just go on to the songs. The title track is a deserved radio classic, with 3 amazing segments. "Jet" was also a deserved hit, one of Paul's best hard rock tunes, with some of Paul's most bizarre lyrics e.g. "I thought the major was a lady suffragette". "Bluebird" is OK, doesn't grab me too much. "Mrs. Vandebilt" may be dumb, but sure is irresistible. Gotta love those 'ho, hey ho's.' The Lennon-esque "Let Me Roll It" has great atmosphere, with the organ and all. I don't see it as a response to Lennon's "How do You Sleep", maybe it's a take-off of his minimalistic style. "Mamunia" also slides past me without making much impact. "No Words" has an awesome sound, but they could have stretched it out one more minute or two. "Helen Wheels" is a murky rock tune that doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the album. Probab! ly because it was tacked on the US release. "Picasso's Last Words" is melodic, and has nice splicing of two early tunes. Then there's the closer "1985." Boy, what a closer. Awesome piano riff, great bridge, amazing ending, this has it all. So, some weak points, a few really high points, a pretty good album. Maybe not their best (still not sure), but it deserves most of its hype.

Max Makovec <MaxMakovec@aol.com> (09.11.2002)

Wow, this one's so grrrreat! One of the most important improvements is that you can notice so many influences from outside, and that's why the album sounds so interesting. It never gets boring! From the first song on I was hungry for more of such good stuff; the title track is almost a Medley, three nice ideas linked together to an incredible good tune. Great this moment where the song gets into the main part; first the bombastic string arrangements and then the tasty acoustic guitar sound afterwards... Mmmh! Anyway. "Jet" is another very diverse tune, this time not because of a Medley-style, but with interesting rhythm-changes every now and then and good hooks. My God is this one memorable. "Bluebird" is a good change after the rocker; a charming, tasty and imaginative tune with a good sax part. "Mrs Vanderbuilt" has good lyrics and a memorable melody (especially these "ho-hey-ho's!), while "Let Me Roll It" is a solid rocker with a fantastic rhythm and a good guitar riff. The first really experimentative song (with African influences, I think), is "Mamunia"; is it maybe about some African legend? See, and that's exactly the stuff I missed especially in the home-made albums, maybe charming, but not very diverse and not much to think about! The next song, "No Words", is a love song, but it isn't surrounded by other ones (and so they're not to much), it has a good melody and even impressionable lyrics. And, by the way, I don't think it's too short, it's absolutely enough; why not a two-minutes tune? "Helen Wheels" is another time a good change and fits perfectly into the album (even if it wasn't on the original release). It's very commercial, but what's wrong about it? It's groovy, funny, and so I like it. "Picasso's Last Words" is a good acoustic ballad, only a bit too long. The idea that other songs break in is in my opinion not the most brilliant Sir Paul ever had, maybe he should have stopped it after two minutes or so. The last track is unquestionably the masterpiece of the album: groovy, danceable rhythm, fantastic lyrics (hey, who said McCartney writes only commercial stuff and/or silly love songs...?), perfectly fitting vocals by Paul and after all an arrangement which makes me stand on my head!

Josh Fitzgerald <Joshsf@aol.com> (24.05.99)

Y'know, for some reason, this album just isn't as great as it used to be. It used to be my fav solo Beatle album, but now, I really can't say that anymore. Granted, it IS great, but my thoughts toward it has mellowed with time. To make the review brief, I'll just say that I love every single song except "Magneto & Titanium Man". Sorta lame. I still do love this album, just not as much as I used to

João Vargas <javargas@zaz.com.br> (26.12.99)

I won't say too much about this ablum because I don't like it very much. 'You Gave Me The Answer' is my favorite, and I like 'Rock Show' and 'Letting Go', but all the rest eem so formulaic that is doesn't do anything for me. I thing there are too many synths here, and it is, in contrast to most of Macca's albums, overproduced. A 7 out of 10.

Jeff Blehar <jdb3@jhu.edu> (09.02.2000)

No no no no no no no! This is REALLY disappointing coming off of Band On The Run! While I won't go so far as Rolling Stone Magazine (bastards) did, and say that Venus And Mars was one of the top ten Reasons Why Punk Had To Happen, this is a big step down coming off of the last album, with only ONE classic song ("Listen To What The Man Said") and a few good ones ("Medicine Jar," "Rock Show," "Treat Her Gently," perhaps). Otherwise, these songs are adequate at best and truly annoying at worst. "Letting Go" and "Love In Song" are probably the most salvageable of the remainders, but they really have too little personality to be memorable, whereas the embarrasing "Magneto And Titanium Man" is just cringe-inducing. As if the comic book story wasn't puerile enough, the music is disgustingly bubblegummy, with this "bompa, bompa, bompa, bompa" bassline that just epitomizes bad taste. "You Gave Me The Answer" is actually somewhat charming, but ultimately no more than a stylistic rewrite of "Honey Pie." "Call Me Back Again" is phony hysterics, plastic soul that I for one find far more unlistenable than David Bowie's near-contemporaneous Young Americans moves, and "Spirits Of Ancient Egypt" has "token Denny Laine vocal spot" written all over it.

M.Gussekloo <gusart@bigfoot.com> (15.05.2000)

Hi, can I post my thoughts?

Darren Bowers <bowers@inetworld.net> (20.06.2000)

To be honest, I feel this album is one of the best solo efforts from McCartney. Although it's not as popular as Band On The Run, I still feel in certain ways its stronger musically. The reason for my optimism is that this album express what McCartney does best. He is the master of polished melodies and tight songs. This shows him at the peak of his game, making slight songs beautiful with changing time signatures, and playing meticulously tight arrangements. Highlights would include the excellent 'Listen To What The Man Said', 'Crossroads', the short ditty 'Venus And Mars', 'Medicine Jar', 'Rock Show', and the little gem 'Love In Song'. The over all fell of the album is a strange one. You get hints of funk, psychedelic, pre punk, and classic mercy beat sound. It's an album that I cant quit put my finger on. Yet it's still engaging in it's own right. Sure yea maybe Band On The Run has more pop and assessable melodies, but this album is reaching for new territory. It's using different influences and breaking new ground. This album has influenced the whole punk scene which would becoming soon. This album is very underestimated and it's very rewarding to the listener. Sure it has a few throw away's but what McCartney album doesn't. I think that this is the most interesting album from McCartney. If you don't like it the first time around, just listen to a few more times, it will grow on you.

Robert Tally <BtheW@aol.com> (08.08.2000)

And so, we get into the post-Band On The Run era. Paul has obviously chosen to emulate the previous album with this one, another 'semi-concept' album. And, as is usually the case when one tries to repeat one's biggest success, this album pales in comparison. That's not to say it's a bad album. In fact, I would probably rate it as Paul's third best, after Band On The Run and Ram. Almost every song on here is memorable, with perhaps the only exceptions being the last two: 'Treat Her Gently - Lonely Old People' (which is decent enough, but a little dull) and 'Crossroads Theme' (which is notably indistinct). When you consider that the song before these two is 'Listen To What The Man Said', it kind of makes the album seem like it's putting out towards the end. Oh sure, the big a-side from this album is typically infectious and I walk around with it in my head for the next two weeks, but the arrangement and performance render it into sugar-coated muzak. Paul's music is often like a rich pastry: it's too sweet and if you get too much of it, you just might throw up.

Dan Miller <m.miller1@tinyworld.co.uk> (12.12.2000)

I think this album was crafted purposely to give wings some good 'rockin' material to perform live. Whilst there is nothing wrong with any of the songs in themselves, I think that they were very poorly produced, particularly in comparison to Band On The Run, and the the great live renditions to be found on wings over america. I dont see that much difference between this album and at the speed of sound, they both sound very much like 'made to order' albums filled with great pop songs (Listen to what the man said / silly love songs), great mid-70's rockers ( 'Rock Show' / 'Beware My Love'), haunting tracks ('Love In Song' / 'The Note You Never Wrote'), and nice ballads ('Treat Her Gently'/ 'Warm & Beautiful').

Sergey Zhilkin <sergey_jilkin@mail.ru> (23.12.2000)

Call me a freak but I say what I think: this effort is better than Band on the run. Why? Here I feel more rockin' atmosphere than on previous one and finally Venus and Mars ('Linda and Paul'?) is more or less concept album. As Paul said in his interview, the album was made after Macca was inspired by A.Azimov (line 'Starship 21zna9', for instance). Nevertheless, this record doesn't have ANY filler at all. Maybe 'Spirits of ancient Egypt' is the only weak spot here while the others can stay in your head for days. The experiment with 'Rock show' is very successful, maybe even the best track here (I say 'maybe' because we have 'Letting go' and 'Medicine jar'). 'Magneto And Titanium Man' is a great cocept song (if it can be called so, of course) with funny beginning and very unexpected ending. Plus, we have here charming 'Letting go' with great sax-work. Such pop-numbers as 'Listen To What The Man Said' and 'You Gave Me The Answer' are funny and ...well, not stupid, better to say enjoyable.

Palash Ghosh <palash7@hotmail.com> (23.02.2001)

Venus and Mars (God of love, God of War) is an album I never really warmed to for some reason. It's another mishmash, the material ranges from gorgeous and moving to forgettable and inane.

Didier Dumonteil <dbdumonteil@wanadoo.fr> (11.03.2001)

1975 was a great year for rock:Dylan's blood on the tracks,Springsteeen's born to run,Neil Young 's tonight's the night,to name but three.Compared to these sensational works,Paul's effort seemed rather tame.Let's take it for what it is: light pop music.Thus we can find some good tracks:the remake of "honey pie" "you gave me the answer",the majestic title track,the mardi gras in New-Orleans "listen to what the man said" the indecipherable "spirits of ancient Egypt" and the nervy "medicine jar".A good holding-pattern album.

Eric Rogozin <erogozin@mtu-net.ru> (07.03.2001)

Another great album of Paul, probably not underrated, but a little unheeded. By the way, why so many awesome Paul's solo albums are unheeded? Yeah, this album rules like Band On The Run. "Love In Song" is a melting beautiful ballad; "Rock Show", "Letting Go" are magnificent as well; "Spirits Of Ancient Egypt" - what a cool song! Contribution of Jimmy McCullough is frigging colossal: "Medicine Jar" is groovy, such groovy as "Venus And Mars" with its reprise. Plus, the album has a retro Twenties-style number "You Gave Me The Answer". And "Listen To What The Man Said" and "Treat Her Gently (Lonely Old People)" are also nice. On the remastered CD we get more cool compositions ("Zoo Gang", "Lunch Box/Odd Sox" and "My Carnival").

Ryan Maffei <chaucer@ix.netcom.com> (24.03.2002)

It seems with this record that some of Macca's creativity and popcraft skill has carried itself on. The stuff is still unbearably slight in spots ("Magneto and Titanuim Man" (!!!), "Venus and Mars"), but Paul proves he can still craft some fine material. Only some derivative, forgettable blues-rock numbers on the second side fail, and Beatle-esque whimsy plays a nice role in the excellent "You Gave Me the Answer", which might as well have been a White Album outtake. A 7/10. About 1975...there were a lot of great records out that year, actually, Night at the Opera, Born to Run, the Rocky Horror Picture Show Soundtrack, Crisis? What Crisis?, Young Americans...wait, wait...ohhh, OHH MY GOD! IT'S TRUE! THERE WERE NO GREAT RECORDS THAT CAME OUT IN 1975!! OH, WOW!!! OHH, that totally changes my way of thinking. Come to think of it...were there any truly great records for the decade post-1974? Nah, I guess not. Huh.

Dan Hogg <dantheman_sg27@hotmail.com> (08.07.2002)

Here's the other contender for my favorite Wings album. I always felt this had more of a concept than Band on the Run, which didn't have much of one. We start out with the tasty "Venus and Mars" and "Rock Show". That interlude between the two gets me every time, I don't know why. "Rock Show" is an amusing tune that sounds to me like a '70's Who parody. "Love in Song"...ehhh. "You Gave me The Answer" shows he still likes those 1920's-style ditties. "Magneto and Titanium Man" is catchy and nice. "Letting Go" is worth it for the intro alone, I agree with what you said about it. Then there's the "Venus and Mars" reprise, a bit longer this time. Denny's "Spirits of Ancient Egypt" sure is strange, but appealing. The anti-drug "Medicine Jar" is one of my favorite non-Macca Wings tunes. "Call Me Back Again" is all right, even if it sounds too similar to "Oh! Darling". "Listen to What the Man Said" hit #1, but I don't like it as much as I used to. "Treat Her Gently/Lonely Old People" is somewhat fillerish, as is the closer "Crossroads". And the three bonus tracks...ehh again. So, yeah, it's still a deadlock. The high points here aren't as high as on BOTR, but there is less filler and is more diverse than the latter.

Max Makovec <MaxMakovec@aol.com> (20.11.2002)

This album is indeed another classic Wings album, but friends, please don't compare it with its predecessor! It's no lame copy, damned, it's a complete different album with new ideas, a new concept (if you can call it concept) and other musical styles. I think Venus And Mars is totally underrated, but maybe that's the fact because it cannot hold the level it begins with. Band On The Run contains classics from start (title track) to the very finish ("1985"). Even the 'bonus' track ("Helen Wheels") is a brilliant tune there. But what can you compare it to in here? There are classics here, unquestionably, but there are pieces of filler, too. Especially the bonus tracks: they are all good ("Lunch Box/Odd Sox" is very groovy), but did they even have the slightest chance to reach the state of a classic? But: doesn't matter for me. Must an album be really full of classics, of unbeatable perfect melodies? On Band On The Run, the songs are maybe better, but on Venus And Mars there is a better flow, I have even more fun to listen to this one than to the previous one. Every part fits perfectly into the other here, and so the album has a very strong radiation of a charming, optimistic masterpiece or music. But to the details.

<CalCrest76@aol.com> (28.07.2003)

Paul is Paul. Stop asking him to be someone else. He's not a heavy metal dude or a punk or glam-boy. This is a very fine record. And for cryin' out loud, stop whining about the trite lyrics in "Listen to what the man said" Those mean-spirited comments probably drove him to write "Silly Love Songs" which is annoying but STILL good. That's Paul for ya. That's what he can do. Now let me address a particular lyric that has been sited over and over as trite: "Soldier boy/Kiss his girl/Leave behind a tragic world/ He don't mind he's in love..." Now, friends, think about it. Some of you get out you history book and see what was going on in 1975. American Soldier boys were indeed leaving behind a tragic world and the only solace to them was finding a meaningful relationship, ya dig? You think I'm reading too much into it? Think again. Paul is smarter than all of us. His songs are rarely overtly political. "Give Ireland back to the Irish" comes to mind, so does most of Off the Ground and that one was hammered at the time of its release by the "mainstream" press. But Paul has opinions and feelings, you just have to look for them. You don't think "Blackbird" was about birds, do you? In 1968? Come on, now. Let's see, where was I? Oh yeah, a soldier boy leaving behind a tragic world in 1975 was not trite. I'm out.

Josh Fitzgerald <Joshsf@aol.com> (16.05.99)

Underrated! This was the first Wings album I ever had, and it's good! "The Note You Never Wrote" really can be spooky. "Beware My Love" is a decent rocker, but way too long. This may come as a shock to some people, but I seriously think "Time To Hide" is Denny Laine's best song ever. While the lyrics leave something to be desired, it has such a great tune!! It's also cool how it links into "Must Do Something About It." About "Warm And Beautiful", it's just really bland. Really the only instrument in it is a piano and a brief guitar solo. "Cook Of The House" is silly, but I loved it when I was 8 years old! I too love "Silly Love Songs". Especially that weird intro. So this album is good, and at one point my favorite Wings album!!! But then I bought Venus And Mars....................................

Jon Springer <pax@akula.com> (05.11.99)

Just a note -- I might have argued once upon a time that "Silly Love Songs" was a disaster, but I am finally convinced its one of his very best. One of Paul's most delightful bass lines ever. And what's wrong with that?

Mats Fjäll <mats.fjall@telia.com> (28.11.99)

Just gonna say that you should listen to the lyrics on 'Silly Love Songs'.

Steve Knowlton <knowltos@co.washtenaw.mi.us> (02.02.2000)

A few facts:

Jeff Blehar <jdb3@jhu.edu> (09.02.2000)

Eeek! Wings' Greatest has almost completely obviated the need for this album, but still not...quite... Arrgh. I hate that. No McCartney album pre-1983 is COMPLETELY disposable, and this is no exception. But this is certainly the weakest in his 70's studio output bar possibly Wild Life. It's obvious that McCartney was recording this while on tour, so he didn't have time to work up a fully successful batch of songs - Beatles For Sale redux, anyone? So too much of this is either nondescript ("San Ferry Anne," "She's My Baby," most of the other vocal spotlights bar "Wino Junko") or flat-out painful ("Warm & Beautiful" - it's bad enough, but WHY CLOSE THE ALBUM WITH IT PAUL?! Don't emphasize the flaws! - and "Cook Of The House"). "Let 'Em In"'s moronic lyrics bother the hell out of me, but I'm helpless to resist its magnetic musical pull on my pleasure centers; stuff like this makes me feel powerless, since I can't HELP but dig that piano line. Now I've never really had a problem with "Silly Love Songs." I just don't see what makes it anymore offensive than "My Love," for example. In fact, it's quite brilliant. Look at how subtle and crafted it is. The rhythm track is ingenious by itself, with all those rattles and clicks resolving themselves into a underpinning (anyone think he was borrowing from Pink Floyd's "Money" here?). Furthermore, the melody is catchy (which is what we expect of McCartney) and the lyric takes a dig at all his critics, which I suppose it why critics made a secret pact to destroy its reputation. Also, the vocal layering is nifty, what with that cool roundelay developing halfway through between McCartney, Laine, and Linda. I like, and I think it even deserves to be six minutes long. A 6/10. (10/15)

Robert Tally <BtheW@aol.com> (09.08.2000)

I'm hard-pressed to think that Wings was actually losing ground with this album. It sounds virtually as good as Venus And Mars to my ears. For the third album in a row, they came up with a collection of songs that are all at least fairly good. There are really no clunkers here. There are, however, some songs I'd rather not listen to. 'Silly Love Songs', the massive hit, is typically infectious (though not as much as some of Paul's previous hits), but it's little more than muzak. And as far as the counterpoint vocals go, I stopped being impressed on the second listen - which was back in 1976. 'She's My Baby' is another cute little song with nothing wrong with it, but I'd rather pass on it. 'Warm And Beautiful', I think, has a pretty nice melody, but it gets a little dull. 'Cook Of The House' suffers mostly from Linda's voice. The song itself isn't so bad, but it kind of reminds me of 'Death Cab For Cutie' from the Magical Mystery Tour film. Jimmy McCulloch has another pretty decent outing with 'Wino Junko', which is of course about drugs, and which also has some interesting production details. Joe English turns out to be a pretty solid vocalist on 'Must Do Something About It', which has a nice verse, but kind of a dumb chorus and a really dumb ending. 'San Ferry Anne' sounds pretty good to me, but it seems it could have been better if Paul had kept working on it. 'Let 'Em In' sounds like something Paul must have sung for his kids. Yeah, that's it. I won't have to feel embarrassed about liking it if I think of it as a children's song. It really is infectious, though in this case it's more because of the chords than the melody. It conjures up quite a haunting mood.

Sergey Zhilkin <sergey_jilkin@mail.ru> (01.01.2001)

You know, the rating of this album depends on your attitude to Paul (and Linda, too). If you want to pump up the rating to 10/10 you can easily say that 'Let 'em in' is splendid piano ballad with thin vocal, 'The note you never wrote' is a wonderful song showing lyrical hero in time of suffering from love, 'She's my baby' is cozy pop ballad with more thin vocal, 'Beware my love' has rare co-singing from Linda and Paul, 'Wino junko' shows that Wings' members could write good songs, too, 'Silly love songs' has chorus that can stay in your head for days, 'Cook of the house' is a jazz-pop song written by soft-hearted Linda, 'Time to hide' is nearly pure hard-rock which is well played, 'Must do something about it' with 'San Ferry Anne' are cute acoustic numbers with strong voice and 'Warm and beautiful' is a pretty sentimental song.... Whew, I nearly fell asleep while writing these lines. Now about my real opinion. I really tend to like this album. To me there're only 3 poor songs ('The note you never wrote', 'She's my baby' and 'Warm & beautiful' (it reminds me about hours I spent sleeping on music lessons)) while the others are good. I can't find anything bad in 'Silly love songs' or in 'Cook of the house'. You know, lately I started to listen to 'albums', not to 'songs on the album'. So now I can feel the kind of an album and Wings at the speed of the sound seems to be very romantic. So romantic that I often turn it on when I spend an evening with a girl. My rating is 8/10.

Palash Ghosh <palash7@hotmail.com> (23.02.2001)

Wings at the Speed of Sound should never have been released. An EP containing the four best tracks, namely 'Beware My Love,' 'Let 'em In', 'Silly Love Songs', and 'She's My Baby' (all written by Paul, of course) would've been a better idea.

Didier Dumonteil <dbdumonteil@wanadoo.fr> (11.03.2001)

I've never liked that.M.Ghosh is absolutely correct.With time,some stuff has improved:"must do something about it,"beware my love" ,but not the 2 crappy singles that were played by the radios ad nauseam this summer of 1976.

Ryan Maffei <chaucer@ix.netcom.com> (24.03.2002)

Dull, mediocre, blatant, derivative, obvious, and forgettable. Speed of Sound isn't bad, it's just a totally worthless, half-hearted entry into the McCartney canon, with Paul spewing ugly balladry ("Warm and Beautiful") and lame hard-rock ("Beware My Love"), and the rest of the group being totally unremarkable in their newfound songwriting "talents". An album where Linda has a spot should be completely left behind without consideration (God rest her soul, anyway). That said, I give McCartney kudos for recognizing Wings as a BAND and not a BACKING BAND, but the members just warn't that great. Maybe McCulloch, he was rather competent with "Wino Junko".

Max Makovec <MaxMakovec@aol.com> (29.11.2002)

This one's not a hot anymore, you say. Hmmm..... yes and no! On the one hand, McCartney is not as strong anymore, but in some songs the other band members (especially Laine and McCulloch) are stronger than ever. The great songs are very well produced, but, well, the disappointments are heavy, Real heavy. And the heaviest is surely Linda's "Cook of the House". My God, how drunk was Sir Paul when he decided that Linda could sing that? On this album? And, worst of all, before one of the best songs of the album, the incredible tasty classic "Time to Hide"! Noticed the difference??? Luckily, my CD has a heavy mistake exactly in the middle of "Cook of the House", Linda is allowed to sing about a minute! Hey, the first intelligent CD I've ever seen!

Jeff Blehar <jdb3@jhu.edu> (09.02.2000)

I'll keep this short. One word: why? McCartney's a completely unrevelatory live performer, the songs are functional if unspectacular renditions, and there are no alarms and no suprises here, except stupid ol' "Richard Cory" (bad poem = bad song) and the silly "Soily." No one needs a Wings live album (even if this one spent something like a lifetime at the top of the charts back in 1977. THIS album is why punk had to happen!), and I've listened to this all of twice in my life. Go buy Red Rose Speedway or Ram instead. Better yet, go get Live At Leeds or Under A Blood Red Sky. Now THOSE are essential live albums! This ain't. 3/10.

Robert Tally <BtheW@aol.com> (09.08.2000)

At this point, I'm gonna have to disagree with both George and Jeff. While I'm not exactly jumping for joy while listening to this album, I would still rate it as highly as Venus And Mars (which is almost all here) and Speed Of Sound. If I wanted to save my money and choose between buying this or buying those two studio efforts, I'd get this one. And for a very simple reason. The songs just sound better this way. Particularly the rocked-up tunes, which always suffered on the studio albums from what John Lennon once described as the 'dead Beatles sound'. That is, since everything was recorded separately, there really isn't much of a 'band sound' on the Wings records (somehow, the Beatles records tended to sound pretty good anyway). Even though much of the recording for this album was done in the studio (a much more common practice than most people think), it still has a live sound, and the band sounds more like they're all in one place - because, after all, they are.

Sergey Zhilkin <sergey_jilkin@mail.ru> (07.12.2000)

I don't really know why but I don't like this album very much. The songs are very good and you can easily take Wings over America as a compilation. But the quality of performance is simply bad (I wonder if this concert was held on a stadium). You know, on some concerts singer's voice is too low and instruments are too loud, on some live albums voice is too loud and instruments are too low. But here we get bad vocal plus, I'm not afraid of this word, crappy (but only on the first six tracks) guitarwork ('Medicine jar' was totally ruined by 12-string guitar). One of the best Paul's songs 'Maybe I'm amazed' suffers (!!!) from Paul's vocal. Really, he sometimes misses the time he should start singing. Though, I must admit that the middle part is fantastic (suddenly Paul's voice became better). He (or someone from his band) even sings 'Richard Cory'. Then we face another beautiful song - 'Bluebird'. You know, I never liked the original on 'Band on the run' because of it's sweetness. But this version is really romantic and moving one (maybe even the best song on this album, though it was VERY hard to define). A little bit faster version of 'Magneto and Titanium man' (many critics dismiss it as a childish happy song but I find here very interesting story) is good, too. 'Magneto' is followed by second cover: 'Go now'. I didn't hear the original but I find this song rather cute. Unfortunately, the quality of sound falls down in 'My love' (or is it all because of bootleg copy?) and in some other songs, too (just take 'Time to hide' as a clear example). The last number on the record is crappy 'Soily' which (oh, thank you, Lord!) wasn't included into any studio albums. Oh, I forgot about 'Letting go' (faster than original) which is great.

Dan Miller <m.miller1@tinyworld.co.uk> (07.01.2001)

I think this is a great album. The opener of 'venus & Mars/ Rock Show/ Jet' is wonderful, and all the songs generally sound much better than they do on record, particularly the Venus & Mars tracks.

Palash Ghosh <palash7@hotmail.com> (24.02.2001)

Wings Over America is clearly for the McCartney completist/fanatic -– I used to have it on vinyl, but I haven't purchased the CD yet (and have no great desire to do so).

Max Makovec <MaxMakovec@aol.com> (11.12.2002)

Oh well, not really much to say about this album. It's only an impression of McCartney on stage and from my point of view it's a more positive than negative impression. Mainly positive, because the audience seems to like it and some performances are really solid. For example the rockers. Especially these one from the beginning sound authentic to me. They are well performed and McCartney sings like he was in process of dying. Funny.

Stefan Ditters <Stefan.Ditters@Bonn.de> (20.11.2003)

Hello,

João Vargas <javargas@zaz.com.br> (26.12.99)

A great album, with some of Macca's best writing. I agree with you on 'Deliver Your Children': GREAT SONG! Paul's falsetto on 'girlfriend' is very nice. I like 'Backwards Traveller' and 'London Town'. This album sounds like Paul decided to do a sorrt of acoustic album, but then threw in a lot of experimentation and synthesizers. One song from this period that really deseved to be here was 'waterspout', probably Paul's best unreleased song, besides 'Yvonne'. this album gets and 8.

Jeff Blehar <jdb3@jhu.edu> (09.02.2000)

This one is soft, soft, soft, yet strangely endearing. Other than "I've Had Enough" there's not a real rock number to be found anywhere here (the Elvis-Presleyisms of "Name And Address" aside, and that's retro-rock anyway), so beware.

Robert Tally <BtheW@aol.com> (17.08.2000)

It seems like an intriguing idea that these guys would go for a more mellow approach after their recent excursions into arena-rock. Unfortunately, the material here sounds mostly mediocre to me. I'll agree with George that the best song here is definitely 'Deliver Your Children' (although they could've slowed the tempo down just a tad). Musically and lyrically, it's just damn solid material, with lots of catchy guitar runs linking the chords. In fact, my second favorite song on here is another that Denny Laine collaborated on - 'Children Children', which has some nice textures and a decent Irish folk-song melody. 'Don't Let It Bring You Down' is a pretty solid tune, but perhaps a little dull. The other two Laine collaborations don't hold up as well: 'London Town' (which has some good ideas mixed with a couple of really dumb melodic things - particularly when they get to the word 'flute') and 'Morse Moose And The Grey Goose' (which is at least an interesting track - but the 'Morse Moose' section is just sort of obnoxious).

Sergey Zhilkin <sergey_jilkin@mail.ru> (21.10.2000)

Wonderful! This is only Paul's album that moves me to tears. So soft in the beginning and so sad in the end... 'Deliver your children' and 'Don't let it bring you down' make me cry every time I hear them. Most of songs such as 'Girlfriend', 'Morse moose and the grey goose', 'Deliver you children', 'Don't let it bring you down', 'Cafe on the left bank' and 'Backwards traveller' (half-finished song but it has something moving inside) are real little worlds which are funny and sad at the same moment. Surely there's filler, but it's still enjoyable! Just look: 'Children, children', 'I've had enough' ('Smile away vol.2'), 'Famous groupies' and 'London town' are simple but good, too. Well, I even enjoy Paul singing:' If you want my love/ Give your name and address'. All songs are very good! And don't forget about bonus tracks ('Girl's school' and 'Mull of Kintyre') are splendid.

Didier Dumonteil <dbdumonteil@wanadoo.fr> (12.03.2001)

Underrated as hell! It met once more with chilly  reviews.But they were totally irrelevant.In London's town,McCartney does what MCCartney does best:melodically,this album is strong,and in a much better way than "silly love songs" "let them in' and all the speed of sound stuff.

Ryan Maffei <chaucer@ix.netcom.com> (25.03.2002)

More blatant, slick pratter, with a dab of nice, apparent folk influence (courtesy of "Mull of Kintyre"'s success?) that elevates the record somewhat. When we're not doing lethal balladry ("I'm Carrying") and ridiculous disco ("Morse Moose and the Grey Goose"), there are some fine moments, like the great title track, and the lovely pseudo-gospel/celtic/medieval folk of "Deliver Your Children", by far this album's best track. But on a record where "Famous Groupies" is a near-highlight, one begins to realize that Macca is really struggling to put out decent material. A low 6.

Dan Hogg <dantheman_sg27@hotmail.com> (10.07.2002)

Hmmm, the boys (and girl, can't forget Linda) are mellowing out here. London Town is probably the quietest of all Wings albums, as in no heavy rockers. We start off with two fine Brit tunes, the title track and "Cafe on the Left Bank". "I'm Carrying" is a typical Macca ballad, and "Backwards Traveller" doesn't amount to much, but is still worth it. "Cuff Link" is unnecessary, and Denny's acoustic "Children Children" sounds a bit dorky to me. The falsetto-laden "Girlfriend" sounds like it was written for Jacko, so it comes as no surprise that he covered it later on. "I've Had Enough" is the only "rocker" here, a pretty generic one for McCartney. "With a Little Luck" is a complete snoozer, how did it make #1 here in the states? "Famous Groupies" may be another dorky tune, but Macca makes it likable. Denny's "Deliver Your Children" is a complete stunner, and I'm glad to see I wasn't the only one who thought it stood out. I won't even describe it, I'd just! be repeating what you said. Who would have thought the best song on a Wings album could NOT be by Paul? "Name and Address" is amusing rockabilly, and "Don't Let it Bring You Down" is repetitve in a good way. "Morse Moose" sucks bad though, no direction at all. Luckily, the CD ends with "Girls School", which rocks much harder than anything on this album. An OK album, just a little too mellow at times.

Max Makovec <MaxMakovec@aol.com> (12.01.2003)

This is, in my opinion, one of the three big "stars" McCartney ever produced. Even as good as Band On The Run and Venus And Mars, it contains a bunch of great melodies, great lyrics and great productions. Furthermore, everything on the album seems to be in its right position because it's all in a way thematically connected and so I'm even able to enjoy this one more than the masterpiece Band On The Run in which I miss the connecting links a bit.

Bill Slocum <slokes@optonline.net> (30.01.2004)

Gotta soft spot for this one, cause it's the first album I ever owned, a birthday gift in May of 1978. Not that I was pleased at the time. I wanted Wings Over America, but Dad got me this instead, maybe because money was tight and Wings Over America was a three-record set.

Brendan S. McCalmont <tnahpellee@yahoo.com.au> (14.07.2004)

This must be quite a good effort for Wings/Paul McCartney solo/whatever. I just CAN'T STAND the fact their ranked above Elton John but Oh well, I'll have to start up my own site .. ;-). Anyways, I thought there were some very excellent songs on here. I think one of the other readers said it right, it's like Paul ladi down a fol album and then said Nah and then laid psycehdelic stuff over the top. The albums' downsides are that, 1) many of these songs are too long and drawn out and after a while they get sought of boring, I suppose. I don't midn a sogn going a long time but I don't want to hear the same old thing over and over and over ... But has Paul McCartney grown as a songwriter? The psychedelic parts on this album are just as psychedelic as Sgt. Pepper, thoguh mostly it's not executed well, and beat everything off Revolver written by McCartney for experimental qualities. Anyways my favoruite songs are the opener, 'London town', then the slow-disco of 'Cafe' [where's that little dash above my e?] on the left bank, the experimental two-fer 'Backwards traveller/Cuff link' has some excellent keyboard playing, 'I've had enough' rocks, 'With a little luck' is just an excellent song, and 'Morse Moose' is so F***ing under-rated. Yeah, okay how generic of a critic to single out a disco song to have a go at, I should have expected it but this song's like a psychedelic disco version of the fantastic 'Yellow Submarine' song, come on! It's very original, innovative and well thought out. It also has great hooks. Oh well the fans'll understand, hey! I'm not even A Macca fan, he's my least favourite Beatle [I can't help having a similar name to him] and I'd give it 11/15.

João Vargas <javargas@zaz.com.br> (26.12.99)

Paul more hard rocking here. There are maybe 4 good tracks ('Old Siam Sir', 'Again and Again and Again', 'Winter Rose/Love Awake') and the rest are pretty boring. Paul tries to do some hard rocking, but his songwriting just isn't up to par. A 7 out of 10.

Myris Collett <mcollett@ctlnet.com> (29.01.2000)

this album could have been alot better. should have included 'daytime nighttime suffering' and 'goodnight tonight'. should have deleted 'baby's request'.

Robert Tally <BtheW@aol.com> (27.08.2000)

And so, after the last effort, in which Wings went for a more laid-back approach and wallowed in mediocrity, we now have a bona fide rock 'n' roll album that accomplishes the same thing. It seems that Paul still had the tools for writing well- crafted pop music, but just wasn't making the most of them. Perhaps the most impressive melody on here is 'Arrow Through Me', which I have to admit is really quite good, but it isn't really the kind of music I like to listen to. I'd say the same for 'Getting Closer.' The only other real stand-out here is 'Baby's Request'. Paul always got the most melodic mileage out of these kinds of songs, and it's probably my favorite track on the album.

Sergey Zhilkin <sergey_jilkin@mail.ru> (29.11.2000)

The first experemental Paul's album. I mean soft experiment, if you want to try Paul's harder experiments take Press to play or even McCartney2. Well, actually Paul has three prohibited things to do: 1) Live albums (no comments are required if you listen to Tripping the live fantastic), 2) Experimental albums (again if you listen to Press to play you'll understand what I'm talking about) and 3) Rock'n'roll albums (in fact, I'm against Paul playing rock'n'roll oldies but not his 'new' rock'n'rolls (Run devil run for instance)). I didn't mention hard-rock albums because a) there's only one hard-rock album (Back to the egg itself, if somebody didn't understand) and b) it's successful. I don't know why I like it. Every song without exceptions. You may think I'm crazy but I insist that 'The broadcast' may be the best song here (oh, well, not the best cause we have 'We're open tonight' and 'Old siam, sir'). I can listen to that monotone melody for many times

Palash Ghosh <palash7@hotmail.com> (24.02.2001)

Back to the Egg is a very odd bird in Paul McCartney's catalog. It never occurred to me before, but, yes, Paul is indeed trying to incorporate punk and disco themes into his music (with varying degrees of success.) This shouldn't be so surprising, after all a much younger Paul in the late 1950's-early 1960's was influenced by such contemporary foreign styles as R&B and Motown.

Didier Dumonteil <dbdumonteil@wanadoo.fr> (12.03.2001)

This is an uneven album.We're pleased to hear that Paul 's still a rocker:"old siam sir" "getting closer" and above all"so glad to see you there" are very exciting.The ballads (million miles,winter rose" are OK but they pale next to these of London townThe best one is a bonus :the pretty "daytime nightime suffering" relatively speaking ,Paul's" woman is the nigger of the world".The rest is rather bland and undistinguished:"spit it on" apes new wave /punk,not exactly the right thing to do,"to you' is a waste of breath ,and "baby's request" ,Hoagy Carmichael style (see somewhere in England),comes as an anticlimax ,not a good choice for closing the record.

Eric Rogozin <erogozin@mtu-net.ru> (11.04.2001)

It's glorious! It's a masterpiece! There's no single reason to dislike it, it's marvellous, it's better than next three albums (though "Tug Of War" is also very good). This masterpiece begins with "Reception" and it's a groovy composition to begin with, hey, anyway is a groovy composition, Paul's bass playing is always awesome. By the way, yes, it's a sort of "half-concept" album. "Getting Closer" is palatial and it's no annoying, it's very fine; check out the ending of "Getting Closer", which is magnificent. "We're Open Tonight" is decent; "Spin It On" is groovy; "Again And Again And Again" is decent; "Old Siam Sir" rules (it's a great song) and I'm very glad, that it was included in one compilation (Grand Collection: Paul McCartney); "Arrow Through Me" is very nice; "Rockestra Theme" is desirable; "To You" is a good song and everyone must like "Winter Rose", this melody is frigging colossal, well, it's so charming. And one must necessarily mention marvellous fast hard rocker "So Glad To See You Here". Hey, and the closing jazz suite "Baby's Request" is wonderful. It's a nearly perfect album. A I also adore one of the bonus tracks "Daytime Nightime Suffering".  Back To The Egg deserves a status of one of the best albums of Paul.

Maritza Eusse <moraeusse@epm.net.co> (21.06.2001)

i think that back to  the egg is a great album, the second best of paul. paul really rocks in this one .rating: 10/10

Ryan Maffei <chaucer@ix.netcom.com> (25.03.2002)

A true egg, oui, and a broken one at that. McCartney's slightest, weakest Wings release finds him turning to blatant, banal-sounding gimmicks ("Rockestra Theme", anyone) and dabbling in wierd sonic effects, more disco, punk-rock and jazz to be able to come up with a halfway decent, releasable record. This feels like a collection of half-assed fragments, or at least, more so that a regular album, with one track--one!--being solid and effective ("Getting Closer"). That's why Paul never succeeded much as a solo artist. He didn't try hard enough. Or maybe he just needed John, like John obviously needed him. Anyway, Back is a middling 4. Finally, our "egg" was rid of the Wings, with nary a second Band on the Run to compensate for Red Rose Speedway, Speed of Sound, London Town...

Dan Hogg <dantheman_sg27@hotmail.com> (10.07.2002)

The last Wings album. This time, I'm not sure there's a concept. There are a lot of unnecessary snippets like "The Broadcast", 'We're Open Tonight", and "Reception" that give one the impression of there being a concept. But in reality, this is just some more Wingstunes. Back to the Egg is a little more aggressive this time, but more uneven. "Getting Closer" is a faceless rocker, and "Spin it On" is a bit more interesting. Punk? I don't think so, but it's all right. Same can't be said Denny's "Again and Again.." It has no melody, no direction, dumb lyrics, and goes nowhere. "Old Siam, Sir" is another best-of-album tune that the both of us agree on. It's possibly McCartney's best rocker of his solo career. "Arrow Through Me" has that 1979 feel, but it works by not being overtly disco. "Rockestra Theme" would be better if it didn't have so much guest power. As it is, it's a waste of talent. "To You" is a a little step above the similar "Again x3", better probably beca! use Macca handled it. The next 4 song fragments don't cut it for me. Only comment is, is that Linda on "Winter Rose"? Or is it a hoarse Paul? That always confused me. "So Glad to See You Here" is pretty much "Getting Closer" plus Rockestra. It ends with a forgettable jazz tune. Bonus tracks include the great pop tune "Daytime Nighttime Suffering", probably the best pop on here. "Wonderful Christmastime" is no "Happy Xmas (War is Over)", but I'll take it. "Rudolph"...ehhh. Well, at least Wings goes out with kind of a bang.

Max Makovec <MaxMakovec@aol.com> (13.01.2003)

One step down on the way to the ground full of lost taste which he finally reached in 1986. No, no, this can't resume the great tradition of London Town etc., although we have nice music here. The rockers are mostly strong, the experiments are mostly groovy and the ballads are also enjoyable. But - hell! - this stuff isn't memorable AT ALL! After first having listened to it, I remembered only two melodies of it the next day. And these two ones are in my opinion indeed the strongest songs here: first the incredible energetic rocker "Old Siam Sir" which is brilliantly sung (sorry, I wanted to say: sreamed!!) by Macca and consists such a groovy rhythm that I can't keep still to it. The second one is "Arrow Through Me", which is funky and funny produced. And again brilliantly sung - which leads me to the point that McCartney does a great vocal job on the whole album. That's indeed the best thing here; McCartney's performances are more inventive and more creative than ever; look at "Winter Rose", McCartney's singing here is the element which really moves me to tears. Brilliant. The only heavy disappointment is the failed experiment "Rockestra Theme" which I think is absolutely pointless. But the other tracks sound all - say - neat to me. Experimentals like "Reception" or "The Broadcast" are OK, why not, but easily forgettable. The rockers "Getting Closer" and "Spin It On" are fast'n'heavy, but also not more than average, solid tunes. The poppy stuff like the cheesy bonus tracks or "Again And Again And Again" are nothing more than usual stuff which you alsways expect from Sir Paul. The only tune in this row which is - if not memorable - at least charming is the bluesy "Baby's Request" - it has the retro feeling of "When I'm 64" and "You Gave Me The Answer" althought it's not as good as these ones. But I'm able to enjoy it very much when I see that there's nothing like that easy and charming kinda music in the next 200 albums McCartney produces.

Diane S. <VacaDi@webtv.net> (08.03.2003)

In all of the reviews here, I'm surprised that no one commented on the great lead guitar work of Laurence Juber.

McCARTNEY II

<Njarner@aol.com> (13.07.99)

Actually, I rather like this album. True, it's not a masterpiece, but I think some stuff here is really cool, if eccentric. The best cut, "Coming Up," is one of my favorite McCartney songs. I think "Temporary Secretary" is kind of funny, and a nice stripped-down form of New Wave. "Waterfalls" and "One of These Days" are fine ballads. I find the instrumental "Front Parlour" really cool, sounding a lot like video game music; I think it's better than any of the instrumentals on McCARTNEY (although "Junk" is almost as good). Most of the other stuff here, though, is average at best. I give this record a 7. By the way, the 1993 remastered version also adds the Wings single "Goodnight Tonight" as a bonus track.

João Vargas <javargas@zaz.com.br> (26.12.99)

OK. I don't like this album. I can see how it was important for Paul to try this, but thank God he didn't continue on this type of thing. 'Coming Up' is bearable, but the live version is MUCH better. The only song I really like is 'Temporary Secratary'. It's a comical track, but it has a great sound. The rest of the album is pretty trashy, especially 'Waterfalls'. This album deserves a 4.

Ivan Piperov <zwetan@stud.uni-frankfurt.de> (09.02.2000)

I think this record is the funkiest and coolest thing, Paul has made since McCartney! And that's the parallel between these two solo works: McCartney II is wonderfully uncommercial and funny. If you play it to some alternative or whatever...non-beatles fans, they'll be really impressed. Besides writing awesome tunes, McCartney's musical and stylish versatility was the thing that impressed me most. And there are synths - so what? They're still analogue and they are quite groovy. I dig all that stuff like 'Temporary Secretary' and 'Secret Friend'. At last this record shows McCartney's sense of homour and boldness. And it went to Nr. 1!

Robert Tally <BtheW@aol.com> (01.09.2000)

Apparently, Paul had no intention of releasing these recordings, but then changed his mind. Unfortunately, what he ended up with was the first real contender to Wild Life as the worst McCartney album. The only songs that I think pull it slightly ahead of the first Wings album are 'Coming Up' (actually quite a good pop song, and refreshingly quirky) and 'Summer's Day Song' (sounds kinda like church, doesn't it? - I like how the vocals show up just once in a while). He almost wrote a good song with 'Waterfalls', which has one of the most memorable melodies, but is otherwise pretty dumb.

Sergey Zhilkin <sergey_jilkin@yahoo.com> (07.12.2000)

Well, actually, I have only one question. Why did Paul do it? Didn't he realise that more than half of these songs are bad (awful, crap, amiss, cobbler, terrible, horrible,.... choose any word out of these to characterize McCartney 2 and you'll be right)?There are only three songs (out of 11) which I can enjoy: 'Coming up' (Paul has better version on Tripping the live fantastic), 'On the way' (it could be better without SUCH vocal) and 'Frozen jap' ('Frozen japanese'? Paul, how could you... Though you have a reason to hate them (remember the story about Linda's joint?)). 'Temporary secretary' was ruined by a) screaming in chorus, b)rythm-generator ,c) horrible electric guitar chord. Other songs are nothing to talk about. Though album was treated by people very well back in 1980. Still I rate it 4 or 5 (out of ten).

Didier Dumonteil <dbdumonteil@wanadoo.fr> (12.03.2001)

A pox on this one!This is the kind of "work" that should never never have been released.It sounds "experimental thus vaguely interesting sometimes:"temporary secretary"" Front parlour" " Summer day song".The problem lies in the fact that Brian Eno has already done that kind of stuff,earlier and better(Here come the warm jets  taking tiger mountainand another green world);As for the remnants,that is to say the main thing,my Ecstatograph points sullenly towards zero throughout.

Max Makovec <MaxMakovec@aol.com> (06.02.2003)

A bad joke, in my eyes. Lousy arrangements, melodies that a three-year-old could have written and failed experiments - no, no, that's not the kind of music I like. I love Synth Pop and New Wave, but not from Macca and not with such a horrible production. Only two songs are listenable, and they both don't belong to the robotic style in the rest of the album: The first one is the plain but gorgeous "Waterfalls" which is ALMOST kitsch, but in my opinion despite of that a charming tune with innocent lyrics. The second one I like even more - "One Of These Days" has a wonderful chorus, and this time again really brilliant production. The background singing in the chorus and the acoustic guitar arrangement are fitting well to McCartney's singing. Furthermore, it's nice to hear McCartney singing here, because the croaking robotic voice in the other songs cannot be Paul McCartney!! The expression Paul has on the front cover is similar to mine after I faced the terrible noises of "Secret Friend" and the other experimental crap before. One of the worst efforts in pop history...

Bill Slocum <slokes@optonline.net> (19.02.2004)

Okay, by this metric, you have to admit that Wings was a better band than the Beatles, as it took a far nastier and more turgid McCartney album to deliver a death blow to their togetherness.

e3s8 <e3s8@kirkco.org> (23.11.2005)

You're even harder on this unsung gem than you were on Wild Life! I guess you just don't dig on homespun art-pop. I guess it's not for everyone. This album is really cutting edge; it sounds like 1990s indi electronica. The way McCartney mixes real guitar, bass and percussion with the snnth keys and drums...great stuff! The bonus track (from the British Import CD) "Secret Friend" is a great ambient/trance track with a lot of atmosphere. Overall, the combination of Paul's unique brand of off-the-cuff rock & roll and his branching-out into New Wave really works. I think this was his last spurt of genius.

Darren Bowers <bowers@inetworld.net> (17.06.2000)

I must agree this is the last true great effort by an icon which can not be matched with his musical merit. Unfortunately there will never be another great McCarntey album after this point. You can sense the heavy influence of George Martin who puts the icing on the cake so to speak. His influence and production effort can turn a good album into a classic. Highlights would be "Tug of war," "Ebony and Ivory," "Somebody who cares," and the heart felt Lennon tribute "Here today." "What that's your doing" is terrible and takes a few points of the album just for the major flaw of being there. It's definitely the weakest point on the album. It just doesn't fit at all. It sounds like I made a home tape of a McCartney album and I accidentally taped over it with this throw away Wonder track. Yuck!!!!! What in the hell was he thinking to put this on the album. Best out of ten, I would give it a 7 1/2.

Robert Tally <BtheW@aol.com> (07.09.2000)

The big comeback album. But, then, anything would have been a comeback after the previous effort. I'd rate this album as being better than London Town and Back To The Egg, though - maybe even Speed Of Sound. The highlights for me are 'Ballroom Dancing' (simply one of McCartney's catchiest pop songs) and 'Get It' (which is made almost irresistible by Carl Perkin's timeless voice). Scoring highly as well is 'The Pound Is Sinking', which is the most varied and interesting track on the album, and quite solid from end to end. I'm also quite partial to 'What's That You're Doing?', although it's about a minute too long and sounds like it belongs on somebody else's album (now who could that be?). 'Dress Me Up As A Robber' holds up pretty well melodically, but sounds like it belongs on a Jacksons album.

Sergey Zhilkin <sergey_jilkin@mail.ru> (21.12.2000)

My first reaction to this album was 'What the $&^% is it?'(first unfull listen). Then it changed to 'Hey! This is Paul's best album'(second listen). Finally it was modified to 'I don't care much for it but it's good'(third listen). Well, the album contains a surprise for you: here you can hear Carl Perkins (I liked this guy very much after I heard a tragic story about his life) on guitar and SteveWonder on synthesiser and on vocal, too. Now about songs. Well, I tend to like 'Ballroom dancing' more than 'Tug of war' because to me it's more bombastic and rockin' too so, in my opinion, it's the best one here. As for 'Tug of war', the beginning is boring and even charming chorus can't save it (I mean, I like it but this one isn't so enjoyable as 'Ballroom dancing', IMHO, of course). Then I can't agree with you when 'What's that you're doing' is dismissed as 'the weakest spot on the whole album'. Surely, it would be better with drums and well-oiled vocal, but still I have a feeling from it as from normal song. 'Dress me as a robber' is built in the same key, so I like it, too. Plus, don't forget about two ballads - 'Wanderlust' with 'Ebony and Ivory'. The first one is great while the second suffers from too long chorus. Do you know why the Finland race pilots are the fastest in the world? Because they forget to put off the feet from gas pedal. The same situation is here: Paul forgets when he should stop.

Palash Ghosh <palash7@hotmail.com> (23.02.2001)

After 1976 or so, I pretty much ignored Paul McCartney and figured he was washed-up. Then in 1982 I kept hearing about this great new album he put out, and I refused to believe it, I thought, no way, Paul has had it. And that 'Ebony/Ivory' track which got round-the-clock airplay got on my nerves. But, out of curiousity or boredom, I bought Tug of War and, wow, it WAS great! I couldn't believe it, Lazarus awakes!

Didier Dumonteil <dbdumonteil@wanadoo.fr> (12.03.2001)

Paul's last n°1on the billboard,it deserved its success.Ther's the Lennon's moving elegy "here today" much better than George's limp carousel "all those years ago".Unlike the previous one ,this album displays care,melodic greatness and even an antiracist anthem!Who could ask for more in 1982?Gone are the "experiments" and the heavy rock of back to the egg."Tug of war","Take it away" and "wanderlust" are other strong cuts.The only horror is "what's you're doing?You said it!

Eric Rogozin <erogozin@mtu-net.ru> (11.04.2001)

I like this album very much, I'd give it a strong 9. It's not the last decent album before the "comeback, because Give My Regards To Broad Street rules, but anyway it's a good album. I adore beautiful charming ballad "Somebody Who Cares" and I also like another moving ballads "Here Today" and "Wanderlust" (though the last one is much better done on Give My Regards To Broad Street).

Dan Hogg <dantheman_sg27@hotmail.com> (10.07.2002)

Tug of War is probably McCartney's best '80s album, from what I've heard. The title track is atypical of McCartney, more political than usual. "Take it Away" is a pop masterpiece, "Somebody Who Cares" is Paul's token acoustic ballad. The funk-flavored Stevie Wonder-penned "What's That You're Doing" seems to get a bad rap, but I like it just fine. It might be out of place and overlong, but it's got a good groove. "Here Today" is the best acoustic song here, a moving tribute to John Lennon. "Ballroom Dancing" is a fun rocker, and "The Pound is Sinking" is even better, with 3 wonderful sections. "Wanderlust" starts off slow, but picks up when the countermelody complements the main melody. "Get It" is a nice ditty with Carl Perkins. "Be What You See" serves as an appropriate link to the flashy "Dress Me up as a Robber". Too bad I never liked "Ebony and Ivory", it has a valid message, but it's too MOR for me. As I said before, I've heard enough bad reviews ! of Pipes and Press to stay away from them, so I'll just call this Paul's best effort in the decade.

Max Makovec <MaxMakovec@aol.com> (06.02.2003)

This one is sure a big improvement to McCartney II. Here the songs again contain hooks, changes of speed, good arrangements (thanks for engaging George Martin!) and enjoyable and interesting moments. The whole thing begins with the title track, which I loved since the first listening. (Indeed I heard it at the 11th September 2001, shortly before the news of the terrorist attack came to my ears... brutal irony of fate!) Starting with the pessimistic and sad description of the (still) actual situation, this anthem turns into a bombastic hymn in which McCartney shows us his vision of a peaceful world. "We will be dancing to the beat played on a different drum" is the nice metaphor here, but he knows that this time "won't be soon enough" for him - and so, for us too. Sad - but realistic. To lift us up, the charming "Take It Away" comes next, with its catchy arrangement and its jolly pop song-character. For me, the best part by far in this song is the reggae-ish beginning, a nice little idea which makes listening more enjoyable and interesting (I missed such ideas on later album work). But lifted up now, the more sincere and sad "Somebody Who Cares" comes now, but it has really some funny and uplifting moments despite its sadness. The charming symbol of the car fits perfectly and I'm really able to lift me up with this song when I'm in a bad mood. The next ones lowes the mood again (this is why I refuse to listen to it more than one time a year!): "What's That You're Doing" simply gets on my nerves; it's sinewy and annoying as hell, much too long and monotonous - although memorable. But I won't lose more words about this failed experiment, it's far more interesting what comes next: another contellation of 'sincere song - jolly song' comes next. First the sad "Here Today", which is a fair and heartfelt end of the relationship of the two geniuses. At the beginning the string arrangement is near to kitsch, but then in the midle part, the turn into plain but gorgeous melodies in the background (reminds me of some Beatles-tunes in the Sgt Pepper and Yellow Submarine time... guess why...). And then the jolly one: "Ballroom Dancing" is somthing you can go crazy about - very funny and charming, so have fun with it. I'm not so perfectly happy with the next two tunes, I would rather describe them as bombast, but still 'well-sounding bombast'. "The Pound Is Sinking" has a very nice middle-part (I love it when Paul sings with the strong British dialect), and "Wanderlust" has a nice melody, but is a bit too monotonous for my ears. But then the funniest thing on the whole album cames, and I'm completely satisfied again: the collaboration with Perkins had "Get It" as a result, and this is really cool stuff. Don't take it serious - this is a very very unserious song good arranged and well done. That's the last fully enjoyable song on here for me - "Dress Me Up As A Robber" is sinewy, too, and "Ebony And Ivory" is... well, yes, a engaged and surely seriously meant track, but way too naive... No matter, because of its melody and good arrangement it sure is a well-fitting finish to the last real masterpiece McCartney ever put out.

Mats Fjäll <mats.fjall@telia.com> (28.11.99)

I have had this album for a a few years and only listened to it ONCE...

Ivan Piperov <zwetan@stud.uni-frankfurt.de> (09.02.2000)

That's the album with which I managed to turn a friend into a McCartney-fan! I don't really know what you're talking about, George. There ARE great songs on it! The title track is as strong as anything Paul has written, 'Say,Say,Say' is a pretty funky affair (despite Jackson). 'The Sweetest Little Show' and the one that follows...that's McCartney at his very best! O.K. 'So Bad' really sucks, but there are some interesting uncommercial instrumental passages...this album is fun!

Robert Tally <BtheW@aol.com> (10.09.2000)

About half of this album was recorded during the Tug Of War sessions, so in essence, it contains a lot of rejects. I would rate it a little higher than Wild Life and McCartney II, but that's about it.

Sergey Zhilkin <sergey_jilkin@mail.ru> (29.11.2000)

Why do you dismiss it? It's no masterpiece, I agree, but it's still good, at least in my opinion. 'Pipes of peace' (song) is Paul's 'Give peace a chance' (though I don't really understand why it came out so late. I can't remember any conflicts back in 1983). But while Lennon's version was a kind of protest (like in 'We will rock you' many people are shouting 'All we are saying is Give peace a chance'), Paul's version is more melodious.

Didier Dumonteil <dbdumonteil@wanadoo.fr> (13.03.2001)

You baffle me!Paul has done worse than this pleasant harmless album:Speed of sound red rose speedway,and to top it all,so to speak,the worthless MCCartney II.It was Paul's first album to miss the American top 10,in spite of a very successful single -but not as good as the one with Wonder-"say say say".The title track is MCCartney to the core:you can't like McC. if you don't like that!"so bad " is very haunting and the last track "through our love " is a ballad in the grand tradition with an optimism so glowing it would raise the dead.3 added tracks:the most interesting is "we all stand together" aka "the frog chorus",a children song .How could you resist that? "twice in a life time",on the other hand is totally bland."Simple as that" is OK but,on a serious topic,Paul can't really rise to the occasion.

Eric Rogozin <erogozin@mtu-net.ru> (11.04.2001)

It's not so bad as you wrote, but of course it's a letdown. The title track is fine, "Say Say Say" is very good, "The Other Me" and "Keep Under Cover" are satisfactory, "So Bad" is much better done on "Give My Regards To Broad Street", but the other tracks are maximum normal, but not more. It's a big letdown!

Max Makovec <MaxMakovec@aol.com> (16.03.2003)

Wow, great! I have this album, and I have it without the only real reason to have it: the bonus tracks. And thus I owe one of the most boring, uninspired, weak and monotonous albums I've ever heard. What shall I say about it? There is almost nothing to say, and I admire you, George, to waste your time with such hogwash and to write such a detailed review... The songs here (and I say that indeed for ALL songs including the title track!!) have nearly no melody, are easy to forget (before I heard it yesterday, I couldn't remember even a single song), are all from the same genre (pop!) and are lousy produced (these ugly electronic drums, hell - this is the father of the bubble-gum pop we 'enjoy' today). Well. Have I forgot anything important? Oh yes, the lyrics. These 'masterpieces' are all such dumb and fool, it's almost funny. While in "Tug Of War" he leaves his thoughts about peace as the vision they really only are, here he knows that we all have to 'learn to play the pipes of peace'. I'm still waiting that someone will learn it... Further on we will only make "songs of joy instead of burn"... oh my God, this warm feeling around my melting heart... this wonderful feeling only increases while hearing "Keep Under Cover", these unbelievable boring anthem, in which we can explore Macca's deeply philosophical lines about love. HOGWASH! Throw it away and leave it behing, better listen to Wings stuff, and you will learn again what a real hook is...

Regan Tyndall <regantyn@hotmail.com> (10.05.2004)

It's no masterpiece, but this is one of Paul's 3 or 4 best (post-Beatle) albums. I'm a bit biased because this was one of the first records I ever had when I was a little kid, but...

Enid Y. Karr <karr@world.std.com> (14.03.99)

Am enjoying your reviews of Mccartney's solo career, just a short note on Broad Street. You say you haven't seen it. I have, and yes, it is pretty awful, because, as all who love Paul know, he's brilliant, but he CANNOT edit himself. So the movie is fairly ghastly. But it is worth watching if only for a very short scene near the end.... where he performs 'Yesterday' as a street busker. It redeemed the whole movie for me!

Robert Tally <BtheW@aol.com> (12.09.2000)

So what do you do when you're Paul McCartney and you can't come up with any good songs? You redo the old ones. That way, you'll end up with something better than Pipes Of Peace. And indeed, this is better, since it includes such outstanding compositions as 'Eleanor Rigby', 'For No One', and 'Here, There And Everywhere' (plus a few that were never big favorites for me: 'Good Day Sunshine', 'Yesterday' and 'The Long And Winding Road'). Even the retreads from his solo career bring about at least one good choice: 'Ballroom Dancing' (plus some more that I could do without: 'Wanderlust', 'Silly Love Songs' and 'So Bad'). The only problem with these tracks is that none of them are as good as the original versions. In a couple of instances, Paul actually rewrites a word or two, which is like playing with fire considering how well known these songs are. And in general, he sings these tracks with a slight degree of flippancy.

Sergey Zhilkin <sergey_jilkin@mail.ru> (10.12.2000)

You know, I have many soundtracks to films but I enjoy not many from them (only Jesus Christ Superstar and Bowie's THE BUDDHA OF SUBURBIA). I hate soundtrack Rock'n'roll circus and I hate Broad street, too. Why? It makes me think of money I foolishly wasted. Look, I paid money for 'Tug of war' twice. Some new songs are bad, too (I even don't like 'No more lonely nights' and 'Goodnight princess'). By the way, the film itself is childish and stupid.

Didier Dumonteil <dbdumonteil@wanadoo.fr> (13.03.2001)

CD are expensive.So you will be wise to ignore this useless soundtrack of a movie rated "bomb" in all the movie guides across the universe.If you can find "no more lonely nights" on a compilation or on a cd single ,that will do nicely.

Eric Rogozin <erogozin@mtu-net.ru> (07.03.2001)

Why do you think, that the film is failed!!?? I always enjoyed watching this film and I enjoy watching this film now, though I have seen it hundred times before. This film has a nice atmosphere and it's a good effort! And it's undoubted! When speaking about the album, I used to consider it not as a soundtrack, but as a whole integral real and GREAT album. To my opinion, it's one of the best Paul's solo albums and why do all commentators here ignore "No Values"?! It's such a great song! It's among my favourite solo songs of Paul. "No More Lonely Nights"(with David Gilmour on lead guitar) and "Not Such A Bad Boy" are awesome and new versions of "Wanderlust", "Ballroom Dancing", "Silly Love Songs" and "So Bad" are SUPERIOR than the original versions. The re-recordings of Beatles songs are quite good and thirties-style "Good Night Princess" is enjoyable. I'd like to mention, that the idea of a medley (Yesterday/Here,there&everywhere"/"Wanderlust") is colossal and the version of "Eleanor Rigby" is interesting.

Dan Hogg <dantheman_sg27@hotmail.com> (31.12.2002)

Whoops, I forgot this soundtrack. Never seen Give My Regards to Broad Street, but I checked out the soundtrack at the library. I didn't listen any to the Beatles tunes, and only a few of the other tunes. "No More Lonely Nights" is a pretty good power-ballad, much better than "My Love". "Not Such a Bad Boy" is an allright rocker, lyrically similar to "Getting Better". "So Bad" was on Pipes of Peace I guess, it's an ugly adult contemporary tune, closer to Dan Fogelberg than Macca. "No Values" is rubbish, and the break-dance remix of "No More Lonely Nights" is laughable. This soundtrack doesn't give me the desire to run out and see the movie anytime soon.

Max Makovec <MaxMakovec@aol.com> (05.06.2003)

It is not very easy for me to write some lines about such a pointless soundtrack. But I'll try. First of all, the thing I dislike most on the CD is the ugly drum machine that destroys the simply beautiful melodies of "No More Lonely Nights", "Ballroom Dancing" (although the other instruments are good arranged here) and "Long & Winding Road", which is a pity, because to introduce this tune with a sax is basically a good idea. My next point of criticism is the order of songs - when I have listened to "Scrambled Egg"... ehhh, sorry, "Yesterday", I'll then have to hear something fast, rockin' or havy afterwards, but "Here, There and Everywhere", yet one of my favourite songs in the Beatles' catalogue, isn't VERY rockin' or fast... in short: totally in the wrong place. But if this weren't enough he then adds "Wanderlust", which is even more non-fitting in this position. To put the songs in the right order is one of the most important things to make an album enjoyable, and here McCartney totally failed. Anyway.

Ivan Piperov <zwetan@stud.uni-frankfurt.de> (09.02.2000)

You have to be quite a masochistic Beatle-fan to enjoy this album. But if you're a "Modern Talking" fan you'll love it! (I'm certainly not!) It includes three very standart-stuff ballads which are good, but not very impressive. At least it shows Paul was still keen on electronics and experiments.

Darren Bowers <bowers@inetworld.net> (20.06.2000)

The only reason a person would ever want to purchase this album is if they were completing there collection of Beatles or McCartney albums. And even then it's still a waist of money. This album is god awful. I can only think of a few album which are as bad as this one. This would be by far one of the worst rock albums ever made. Although there are a few half way decent song which are 'Press' and 'Footprints'. And even those songs would only make good B-sides. They should put a sticker on the album cover stating "WARNING THIS ALBUM IS A WAIST OF YOUR TIME AND MONEY." Best out of ten, I would have to give this album a 1. And even that is being generous. If your still contemplating on getting this album, don't say I didn't warn you.

<Wardo68@aol.com> (17.08.2000)

OK. I've spent the morning reading your McCartney reviews so I'm trying to get some context. I stopped at Press To Play, and haven't yet gone ahead to see what you think of everything else, but I must say this album is NOT his worst. I can't decide if that honor goes to Pipes of Peace, Broad St or Red Rose Speedway. And don't get me started on 'Mumbo' and 'Bip Bop'. Like most of his albums, it hasn't improved with age, which makes one think it wasn't that good to begin with but... 'Stranglehold' is satisfactory, as are 'Footprints', 'Busker', and 'Angry'. 'Only Love Remains' is gorgeous. The rest vary from wince-inducing to just not good. His worst album? Hardly. But still not his best. Crowded House put out two fine albums before Macca's next real album, and I like those better. OK. Back to reading.

Robert Tally <BtheW@aol.com> (23.10.2000)

While I wouldn't rate it as low as George did, I'd still put this album on a par with Pipes Of Peace - meaning that only Wild Life and McCartney II are worse. There is one song on here that stands out for me, which is 'Stranglehold'. The rest are generally mediocre. 'Footprints' is a little better than the rest, if only for its mood. 'Pretty Little Head' conjures up some atmosphere, but is a bit dumb. 'Good Times Coming' works pretty well as a new wave parody, but is marred by being segued into the weak 'Feel The Sun'. 'Angry' is pretty laughable, but at least it rocks. 'However Absurd' does a pretty good job of sounding like a Pink Floyd tune. 'Talk More Talk' doesn't live up to all the interesting little voices you hear in it. 'Move Over Busker' is just a forgettable medium-paced track. 'Only Love Remains' is a dreary ballad in the 'My Love' vein. And 'Press' is purely mindless eighties synth pop.

Sergey Zhilkin <sergey_jilkin@mail.ru> (24.10.2000)

Okay, it's his worst album ever and there's nothing to talk about. Only one good song ('Press') and tons of s#$t. Pail! How could you do that? You always told us in your interviews that you hated electronic sound. O.K. Still if you want to buy it, I advise you to get 1993 year edition (good idea: sell garbage while you are on comeback wave). It has two more good songs: 'Write away' and 'Spies like us'. I'd rate it 4/10 with bonus and 1/10 without it.

Dan Miller <m.miller1@tinyworld.co.uk> (12.12.2000)

Hated it when I first heard it but it has grown on me. I first heard it on the '93 CD reissue so I include all the extra tracks in this too.

Didier Dumonteil <dbdumonteil@wanadoo.fr> (13.03.2001)

In French,we say "tomber de Charybde en Scylla" ,in English,they say "jumping of the frying pan into the fire".That's exactly what Paul did with this doomed press album,the only one that was not to collect a gold record.Proof positive,that ,there is ,from time to time,justice in the universe. A decent single could be culled from this unspeakable mess:press b/w (personnal taste) "pretty little head".THe bonus track are no godsend too:"once upon a long ago" gambles on the B. nostalgia again,with hollow echoes of a past lost in the mists of time.

Eric Rogozin <erogozin@mtu-net.ru> (11.04.2001)

C'mon, it's not so bad! "Footprints" is a lovely great ballad and don't forget "Stranglehold", which also rules! All the tracks are rather decent (of course, only decent, not great, because great are only "Footprints" and "Stranglehold") and this record is better than McCartney II and Pipes Of Peace.

Stephen Lavan <Lozlavan@btopenworld.com> (19.08.2002)

Press to Play and witness mid-eighties Paul McCartney at something of a musical crisis. In Great Britain the new compact disc was finally displacing vinyl records, which saw Paul not really sure how to fill-in the new, much longer CD running time, with adequate material. Paul, along with other top artists of the day, became obsessed with remixes. In the UK Press came out as a vinyl album containing the first ten songs on the CD -but with a different (and very much better) version of the song 'Press'. 'Only love Remains' was released as a single- but remixed with a saxophone solo not featured on either the vinyl LP, or the CD. This may sound very academic but the crucial point is this: as a vinyl LP the album Press is very good. The songs flow and the album has a sense of pace and purpose. Press to Play is beautifully produced and Paul's vocals and bass guitar are excellent. The album flows wonderfully in the way that most of Wings albums flowed and climaxes with the big finish 'However Absurd'. Yep, the album works just fine. The CD however does not. The remix 'Press' is awful and the extra "bonus tracks" make the album drag on endlessly as it finally runs out of steam leaving the listener tired and bored; that is if they are dedicated enough to press on to the bitter end. My advice is to try and get a copy of the original vinyl LP and enjoy one of the few eighties albums worth listening to!

e3s8 <e3s8@kirkco.org> (02.01.2006)

I like some of your reviews, George, and your usual pro-Wings stance, but you’re just dead wrong here. Your irrational hatred of the 1980s synth sound has clouded your judgment on Press To Play. Easily Paul’s most inspired and accomplished record after disbanding Wings. Sure, it has a dated, slick 1987 production, but Sgt. Pepper has a dated, slick 1967 production. And like Sgt. Pepper, Press To Play is loaded with catchy pop songs with an experimental edge. And unlike it’s rather lackluster, adult contemporary follow-up, Flowers in the Dirt, the 1980s production is part of the album’s aesthetic; it’s why it exists (to your dismay). Flowers in the Dirt was just Paul doing “damage control” and coming up with mid-period sounding Beatle songs, except for now they were sedated and had an over-produced 1989 sound. Press To Play on the other hand, isn’t a man just slicking up his past accomplishments. It’s a man living and vibing with the times, the present. Why shouldn’t McCartney sound like the 1980s in the 1980s? Why shouldn’t he compete with The Cure, Prince and Genesis instead of taking the easy way out and playing to nostalgia (like he’s done pretty much ever since)? You hate the way most 1980s records sound, except for The Police. Fine. Some of us are open to different sounds from different periods. Press To Play is what McCartney did best: Moving forward, evolving, yet retaining his identity while he did it. What? “Footprints” and “Only Love Remains” aren’t the same type of songs he wrote in The Beatles and Wings? Of course they are. He just has a few 1980 sonics attached to them. And the cover was just a fun ode to old Hollywood. And the lyrics are just as fun and whimsical. Paul’s cheekiness, his whimsy is an important part of his identity. And Press To Play has it, along with great melodies and musical invention, in spades. Oklahoma WAS never like this!

e3s8 <e3s8@kirkco.org> (18.04.2006)

I wanted to revoke my comments about McCartney's Press To Play. The album doesn't stand up well to repeat listens. I still think you were too hard on it and it's better than Flowers In The Dirt, but it IS a little too slick and 1980s for its own good. I'm starting to think the 1980s did kind of suck. But the 1990s and 2000s are even worse. Let's face it. Music peaked in the late 1960s, started to taper off in the early 1970s; picked up a tad in the late 1970s and early 1980s; and it's been down hill ever since (with an exception here and there). I still dig McCartney II though. THAT album managed to mix in synth, New Wave elements without losing its heart. That is, McCartney II is far more organic. And funky. If only Press To Play had a pop moment as kickin' as "Comin' Up".

Dmitry Jilkin <dsj@dialup.ptt.ru> (29.05.2000)

Where doyou live, boy? Not in Russia I bet. So you can say nothing about CHOBA B CCCP album. It was made ONLY for USSR people, who knew only about one Paul's album - Rubber soul. They've never heard Chuck Berry, Carl Perkins, Buddy Holly and Elvis Presley! Melodia(it is our company that published CHOBA B CCCP in Russia (1989)) did a great job. Half a million records were sold in three weeks (only in Moscow and Leningrad). People got another small peice of Paul McCartney and Beatles. Everyone who bought it was thankful to Paul for such records, because at first it was hard to be published in USSR even for native groups (there was a plan -- one album in two years) and at second rock-n-roll was VERY popular in USSR in those years. So please take your words back. It is not fair to talk about present that wasn't made for you.

Robert Tally <BtheW@aol.com> (25.10.2000)

My opinion of this album is pretty much the same as George's. It would be nice to say that this excursion into McCartney's past yielded an inspired bunch of music - but it didn't. On the positive side, I think the musicians sound pretty good. The performances are both unpolished and professional. And the sound is clear and simple. On the negative side, there isn't a version of any song on this album that tops the original, or for that matter, certain cover versions done previously by other artists, most of whom George already mentioned. McCartney just doesn't have what it takes to sell these songs. When you're dealing with early rock 'n' roll songs (or c&w or r&b or blues), the performance is everything. Paul sings these songs with style, but without passion, and ends up sounding smug. In addition to that, he no longer can hit the notes on the Little Richard material without getting that strain that became a hallmark of his World Tour period of the late 80s and early 90s. I'd also like to make one little nitpicking point: the echo on 'Ain't That A Shame' cheapens an otherwise reasonable track. Basically what we have here is a mediocre album. Nothing more and nothing less. And now, here's some technical info for those who are interested, including perhaps Dmitry, who may be surprised to know that five of these tracks came out in the UK before anybody else got them. Now, as many are aware, the original Russian LP had only 11 songs on it. Four of these had already been released a year earlier in the UK on the CD single and two separate 12-inch singles of 'Once Upon A Long Ago'. These were 'Don't Get Around Much Anymore' (my favorite track on the album), 'Kansas City', 'Midnight Special' (now there's a dull rendition!) and 'Lawdy Miss Clawdy'. A couple of months after the 11-song album, the Russians got a 13-song album, adding 'I'm Gonna Be A Wheel Someday' (which was accidentally left off of some copies, resulting in a very rare 12-song version) and 'Summertime' (which not only is topped by the Joplin version, but the Porgy And Bess version as well). A couple more tracks ('I'm Gonna Be A Wheel Someday' and 'Ain't That A Shame') appeared in the UK, as well as the US, several months later on the 'My Brave Face' CD single (and UK 12-inch). There were also a couple of tracks that appeared in the UK that weren't on the Russian LP at all, both of which were on the 'This One' CD single and 12-inch. These were 'I'm In Love Again' (which eventually was included on the CD version of the album) and 'I Wanna Cry' (a dull blues tune written by Paul himself). This latter tune also turned up on a US promo CD called Paul McCartney Rocks (along with 'Don't Get Around Much Anymore'). And, finally, there is a dull version of 'It's Now Or Never' which appeared on a various artists album called The Last Temptation Of Elvis.

Teresa Juarez Guzman <ggr74017@prodigy.net.mx> (26.11.2000)

Nothing to say except that going through this page is a fun way to forget my personal troubles. Nothing to add to your review, "George"?, on Back to the USSR. It's a so-so album. 5. Oh... and... as you'll see in my comment about Flaming Pie, sometimes we get carried away and simply our comments sound like complaints. Take them as they are. We're not going to change each other's toughts. Nice page I must say again.

Sergey Zhilkin <sergey_jilkin@mail.ru> (29.11.2000)

My brother Dmitry is a little bit mistaken here (I write 'a little bit' only because he's my brother, otherwise I'd have written 'deeply'). He says that the Russians had only small part of Paul's solo career and Beatles career, too. It's not true. Actually, there were 7 singles (two, three or sometimes four songs on every single-disc) and one album released (Band on the run) before 1988. In 1988 there was first variant of Back in USSR without 'I'm in love again', 'I'm gonna be a wheel someday', 'Don't get around anymore' and 'Summertime'. On the 1989-variant there were no 'I'm in love again'. I searched for information about release Back in USSR in UK or USA. BtheW (Sorry man, I don't know your real name so I'll take it from your address) is completly right but still I want to stress that these songs were put together firstly in USSR.

Sergey Zhilkin <dsj@dialup.ptt.ru> (01.10.2000)

McCartey's most overrated album. But not by you. I heard some critics saying it was better than Band on the run. Nevertheless it's great comeback for Paul, isn't it? Songwriting surely improved after Press to play (yuck!) and lyrics are great, too. I can't define the best song here. They are all so different (oh well at least the first ten songs from 'My brave face' to 'That day is done') and so wonderful, charming. I love them! But I think that album is so good because of Paul's strong support-team. H.Stuart, D.Rhodes, St. Lipson and D. Gilmour (is it the same Gilmour, the member of Pinhk Floyd? If it is no wonder that 'We got married' has such ending) play on guitars, post-punk rockabilly Elvis Costello helps Paul with vocals, Ch.Whitten and D.Mattacks play on drums while while M.Froom, C.Hawkes and T.Horn with D.Foster play on keyboards. And don't forget about Linda who learnt how to use harmonies. How many instruments do you think there are on 'Figure of eight', 'This one', 'My brave face' or 'We got married' (Hey! Why didn't you write a word about this beautiful song? Very calm beginning and what unexpected ending!) The only two songs I don't kike here are 'Motor of love' and 'How many people' (you're right, it's political filler. Paul! How about selling T-shirts with sir Paul giving a kick to Saddam Husein? Or protesting against Soviet soldiers in Afganistan. Or...). Most of songs on Flowers in the dirt are very complex. Does the fact that there're three men playing on the sax (Ch.Davis, Ch.White and D.Bishop) tell you something? Despite the fact that there're so many different songs, the album leaves the feeling of blues one. Why? I don't know. This album is true 8 out of 10!

Robert Tally <BtheW@aol.com> (29.10.2000)

A clear comeback, this album easily beats out everything McCartney had done since Tug Of War, and I think it's the equal of that album in terms of quality - if not better. My favorite tracks tend to be the collaborations with Elvis Costello, particularly the strange 'Don't Be Careless Love' and the amusing 'You Want Her Too'. I'm also very partial to the gospel-oriented 'That Day Is Done' and the hook-filled 'My Brave Face'. Plenty of the material McCartney wrote on his own is top-notch here as well: 'We Got Married' is an excellent piece of writing and arranging, and 'Put It There' is downright charming. There are also a few tunes that I like only moderately: 'Distractions' is a nice jazz-ballad; 'How Many People' is a decent pop-reggae tune with a soft message; 'This One' is an infectious pop song that perhaps sounds too much like a TV ad; 'Rough Ride' is a decent song that somehow doesn't grab me. The only songs that I really don't care for are 'Motor Of Love', which is just a little too airy and doesn't have that great of a melody, and 'Figure Of Eight', which I guess is supposed to be a highlight (it opens side two), but Paul sounds obnoxious and the melody ain't much. The CD version of this album also contains 'Ou Est le Soleil?' (from a US 12-inch and cassette single, as well as some of the 'Figure Of Eight' singles in various formats), which is a return to the more syncopated type of stuff Paul did on Press To Play - and yet, I find it strangely appealing. The remastered CD also contains the very catchy 'Back On My Feet' (another collaboration with Elvis - from the b-side of 'Once Upon A Long Ago' in the UK), the bizarre but infectious 'Flying To My Home' (from the b-side of 'My Brave Face') and the somewhat unexceptional ballad 'Loveliest Thing' (from the 'Figure Of Eight' 5-inch CD single in the UK). There were several songs from this period that didn't appear on this CD: 'The First Stone' (a disjointed and mediocre song from the b-side of 'This One'); a remake of 'The Long And Winding Road' (from the 'This One' boxed single and the 'Figure Of Eight' 5-inch CD single in the UK - didn't he already do this one on Broad Street?); 'Good Sign' (little more than a dub mix, it comes from the 'This One' 12-inch in the UK); 'Party Party' (little more than a groove, it comes from the bonus disc of the World Tour Pack of the album); 'Same Time Next Year' (a hopelessly corny ballad from the 'Put It There' CD single in the UK); and 'P.S. Love Me Do' (sounds 'Love Me Do' and 'P.S. I Love You' got married and had a kid - and the kid grew up to be Madonna; from the double CD version of the album in Japan). There was also a duet with Johnny Cash called 'New Moon Over Jamaica', a gentle country waltz from Cash's album Water From The Wells Of Home. It should be noted that the version of 'Figure Of Eight' on the countless single releases is an entirely different recording than the one on the album and appears in 3 different edits (not counting promos). The version of 'Rough Ride' on the 'Figure Of Eight' 3-inch single (in the UK) is also a different recording than the album version. There is a 'Club Lovejoys Mix' of 'This One' on one of the 'Figure Of Eight' 12-inch singles in the UK. 'Ou Est le Soleil?' appears on various singles only as a remix, and four different edits (not counting promos). There is also a 'Dub Mix' and an 'Instrumental Mix'. The Japanese double CD also contains a spoken message not found anywhere else. Happy hunting.

Didier Dumonteil <dbdumonteil@wanadoo.fr> (13.03.2001)

The first thing to bear in mind is that Costello's heyday had become a thing of the past in 1989,with a lot of classics under his belt,but BEHIND him.So if this album succeeds(and IMHO it does),it's because of Paul alone.In 1989,"my brave face" " figure of eight" and "this one" were beautifully crafted pop."Put it there" is to Paul what "forever young" is to Dylan,and it's got a very nice tune at that."how many people?" displays an exotic charm and "motor of love" is the orchestral ballad de rigueur."Où est le soleil? Travaillez"is weird ,and features the first French words since "Michelle" (Unless you count the radio in "Picasso's last words")

Eric Rogozin <erogozin@mtu-net.ru> (17.04.2001)

It's second famous McCartney album after Band On The Run. I don't share George's opinion about Press To Play (I think, that Press To Play is satisfactory, quite normal album), but in any case "Flowers In The Dirt" is a comeback, not only because the album itself is very good, but also because it was at last not ignored by critics. I will not consider every song, but I want to say, that the best one here is "We Got Married". This composition is a masterpiece and one of McCartney bests! This album is very exciting, this feeling begins with the opening track "My Brave Face", continues with "Rough Ride" and goes further. And the lovely ballad "Distractions" is VERY beautiful and charming.

John Ashfield <jashfield@mpcsd.org> (19.01.2006)

I disagree with your assesment of the b-sides.

Robert Tally <BtheW@aol.com> (01.11.2000)

The obvious comparison here would be with Wings Over America, which is notably superior to this second triple-live album from McCartney for one main reason: on the earlier album, the live versions are often better than the originals. Not the case with this long-winded release. Not that these are necessarily bad versions. In fact, to somebody who isn't familiar with the original versions, this would be a pretty impressive collection of songs. But McCartney's voice is consistently strained and the band is too often flabby-sounding, even with all their professionalism. Good examples of this would be 'Birthday' and 'I Saw Her Standing There', both of which lack the authoritative wallop of the Beatles versions. Mostly, though, the songs in this collection sound close enough - in fact, sometimes too close - to the originals. The Flowers In The Dirt material in particular is virtually indistinguishable from the studio recordings.

Sergey Zhilkin <sergey_jilkin@mail.ru> (29.11.2000)

Paul'd better call it 'Ripping the live fantastic'. This record is one of the most weakest live albums I've ever listened to. Let's start from the fact that Paul sings too many Beatles' songs and I can't say that live performance is better than LP's one. Then Paul put two really stupid numbers: 'Inner city madness' and 'Together'. Were they written in five minutes? It seems to me so. Next disappointment is that we hear too many dinosaur-rocks. They are not bad but a) Paul sings them badly and b) They don't get together with songs from Flowers in the dirt. By the way, I know why Paul stops singing 'If I were not upon the stage': crowd (concert was in Germany) was going to boo him off! Can you imagine it?

Didier Dumonteil <dbdumonteil@wanadoo.fr> (14.03.2001)

It had to be done!Paul couldn't retire without performing once in his life his tremendous catalogue live.In wings over America,there were only 5 B. tracks,and on concerts for Kampuchea (not available on CD) only two "Got to get you into my life" and "let it be".So everyone ,please gather for the feast.And a feast it is ,at least for the spectators.Hear the crowds'singalong in "hey Jude",the screaming at the beginning of the great classics.Maybe it's only a nice souvenir,but that kind of souvenir is priceless.

Margaret Phillips <margaret.phillips@uqconnect.net> (03.04.2004)

It seems that there is a lot of disappointment both with Macca's recorded efforts and his constant battle to present himself as Lennon's creative equal (or superior!). I agree with all of that, but I am amazed that people aren't more impressed by the extended 'Sgt Peppers' on the live album.  I can vividly recall being blown away when I first played it!  I just kept re-playing it. I have a secret wish that one day someone will unearth a bootleg of the original Beatles session where they jammed the guitar link that inspired this version!

Sergey Zhilkin <sergey_jilkin@mail.ru> (05.09.2000)

Your review disappointed me very much.Not because you gave it high mark (it's fair) or said something wrong.Well, I'll try to explain.I have 'Unplugged: the offical bootleg' on one disc (as you I think) but there are only 17 songs of 22 you reviewed.The cover is the same as yours and I haven't heard it was remastered (when and for what? 1991 is rather fresh).I checked three other sites on Web and all were reviewing 17-songs version.Please judge us.And one correction: 'Blue Moon Of Kentucky' was written by Bill Monroe(well, maybe it was sang by Elvis later).

Robert Tally <BtheW@aol.com> (30.11.2000)

I think the appropriate album to compare this to would be The Russian Album, since there are so many rock 'n' roll oldies here.  I far prefer Unplugged over that earlier release.  Most of the songs here are sung well and generally have a good atmosphere - although I'll admit that I'm kind of a sucker for acoustic performances. It's refreshing to see so many tracks from McCartney here, with both 'Every Night' and 'That Would Be Something' being standouts.  Most of the oldies work well, with perhaps 'Hi-Heel Sneakers' being the best.  If anything, it's the Beatles tunes that are inconsistent (I mean the versions - not the songs themselves).  Nevertheless, I would still rate 'She's A Woman' as one of the best tracks on this album, even though the Beatles' version never did much for me.  I'm also fairly shocked that Paul wrote the harmless but catchy 'I Lost My Little Girl' when he was only 14.  But then, he's Paul McCartney, isn't he?  I'd also like to give a thumbs up to Robbie McIntosh for his work on the dobro, which gives a whole new dimension to 'Blue Moon Of Kentucky', 'San Francisco Bay Blues' and 'That Would Be Something'.

Didier Dumonteil <dbdumonteil@wanadoo.fr> (15.03.2001)

The unplugged paraphernalia fits Paul like a glove.The tracks from the very first album rejuvenate.There's a cool intimate atmosphere .And anyway "here there and everywhere " is so strong a ballad that it would shine even with the worst treatments."Singing the blues" is no blues at all,but there's no time for the worrying blues.

<Twired1@aol.com> (05.03.2000)

I agree with your views about this album... and I'd like to mention that Macca released a two-disc set called Off the Ground: The Complete Works in the Netherlands. It can cost a pretty penny (you'll likely only find it on ebay) but having the second disc is worth the expense. Disc two is just as good as, if not better then, disc one. It includes a lot of B-sides and rarities, including a full version of "Cosmically Conscious." Excellent material in the same vein as the US version. It's quite a shame that he intended these songs for such a limited release.

<Wardo68@aol.com> (17.08.2000)

Now THIS I can stomach! This is the closest he's come to the Wings sound since Wings. I always liked 'Biker' despite the lyrics, and even the worst songs are better than those on Press to Play. Still, I don't listen to it as much as I did when it came out.

Sergey Zhilkin <sergey_jilkin@mail.ru> (29.11.2000)

Nice cover. Maybe the best one of Paul's albums (just look at the legs of Linda (second from the beginning)! He-he-he!). Still good cover doesn't mean that album is good itself. I don't want to say that Off the ground is crap or big misstep after Flowers in the dirt (though I think it's a letdown after that comeback-record). Your reviews about these two albums are OK but I still don't understand why did you rate Flowers lower than Off the ground...Stop! My brain is going to break down if I don't stop... Whew... Yeah, it's alright. You know, I feel the mess in my head so I'll try to show my ideas step by step, OK? Now, see, Flowers is a very complicated album. It's not concept but tunes are ...well, not progressive, but I'm sure you know what I mean. Paul returned to form back in 1989. But on Off the ground we hear another Paul who is more simple and more poppy (I'm not sure that there's such word in English but again you know what I mean). Though I have to admit that Paul tries to repeat Flowers. But, unfortunately, misses the mark. Just listen to such songs as 'Mistress and maid' or 'C'mon people'. Paul tries hard to make melody more serious and complicated but something is wrong. Surely, this record is a letdown. Other songs like 'Biker like an icon' (well, it's good and catchy but nothing serious), 'Off the ground' (awful chorus), 'Hope of deliverance'(I'm getting sick and tired from Paul's vocal here) and 'Get out of my way' are good and catchy (yes! I found the right words at last! Catchy and jolly!) but they remind me Ringo more than Paul.

Robert Tally <BtheW@aol.com> (07.12.2000)

The followup to the big comeback album Flowers In The Dirt.  This should be an ominous situation, since the last time there had been a big comeback album (Tug Of War), it was followed by a real dog (Pipes Of Peace).  So it should be considered a major accomplishment for McCartney that this followup (Off The Ground) is almost as good as the comeback. To my ears, it sounds like a continuation of Flowers In The Dirt. Again, the strongest material is the Elvis collaborations, in this case 'Mistress And Maid' and 'The Lovers That Never Were', both of which are melodically adventurous and sophisticated.  (But has anybody noticed that, of the seven Macca/Elvis numbers released on Paul's records, four of them are in waltz-time?)  And again, Paul's solo compositions are generally strong, with 'Off The Ground' (a simple tune with a big fat sound) and 'Peace In The Neighborhood' (a genuine feel-good tune) being my favorites of those. I'm also quite partial to 'Biker Like An Icon' and 'Golden Earth Girl'. Most of the others are nicely written tunes that don't quite matter much to me, such as 'I Owe It All To You' and 'Hope Of Deliverance.' Which brings me to the rest: 'Get Out Of My Way' (which has some nice guitar work and a snappy brass motif, but just doesn't rock intensely enough); 'C'mon People' (a decent attempt at an epic if you just slice off that ridiculous 'oh yeah' section); 'Winedark Open Sea' (a little too melodically dull for me); and 'Looking For Changes' (the weakest track, not only because the melody is kinda dumb, but because the lyrics achieve the exact opposite of subtlety).

Didier Dumonteil <dbdumonteil@wanadoo.fr> (15.03.2001)

IMHO,it's a comedown after flowers in the dirt.Here the "serious" "meaningful" "social" topics get the upper hand.And this is not Paul's forte (remember "give Ireland back to the Irish")So "looking for changes" "biker like an icon" and "peace in the neighbourhood" may seem generous ,committed,actually it sucks.Paul ,in a grand gesture ,comes to rescue cats,blacks,women,rabbits.HIs intentions are good ,no one can deny it,but the lyrics are at best mundane ,at worst laughable ,with inexistent melodies at that.An artistically-muribond Costello lends a helping hand but the collaborations are weaker than on flowers.Ah had he come in 1980 ,at the heights of his powers(Armed forces,Get Happy),he would have spared us McC II

Eric Rogozin <erogozin@mtu-net.ru> (17.04.2001)

It was my first McCartney album and since the first time I heard it I liked it very much. I remember saying to my friend "Listen to it. Paul's vocal sounds like it sounded thirty years ago, and, in general, this stuff is awesome!". And I was right, it's a damn good album. Yes, it's very diverse and interesting, although Paul always used to write diverse and interesting music. The best songs? I like all the songs here (like I like almost everything Paul does) , but the bests are tracks 2-6.

Glenn Wiener <glennjwiener@hotmail.com> (08.06.2002)

I'm not the biggest Paul McCartney fan on the plan but this Off The Ground release is pretty special. What odes it for me is the instrumental definition throughout the record. Paul uses varying keyboards, guitars, brass, strings, and special effects to give each track a unique flavoring. Like yourself, I enjoy 'Golden Earth Girl' very much. Really touches the soul. 'Peace In The Neighborhood' stands out strong with its hopeful lyrics and gorgeous piano runs. 'Biker Like An Icon' was well deserved of its single status with snappy rhythms and cute lyrics. Call me different but I like the words.

Sergey Zhilkin <sergey_jilkin@mail.ru> (22.08.2000)

This time overall rating should be smaller than the record rating. Paul is taking highlights from Off the ground (this is VERY good album but do you want hear it once again) and some Beatles songs which are better on original LP. He just prooved that he still had voice but we knew it. Only one pleasant thing for me is another version of 'Good rockin' tonight'(Do you remember fast version on Unplugged). 'New' 'Drive my car' and 'Looking for changes'(a little bit faster than original) are useless. The concert is over but we still have empty space on disc. What will we do? Yes, we'll put 'Kansas city'(Paul! We've heard it on CHOBA B CCCP), silly 'Hotel in Benidorm', another version of 'I wanna be your man' and another surprise - 'A fine day'(Ooh! Better). I don't really know how to rate it. Let's forget about it.

Robert Tally <BtheW@aol.com> (11.12.2000)

It is indeed very curious that McCartney released yet another live album at this time. This sounds like a continuation of Tripping The Live Fantastic. There's a whole cartload of Beatles tunes, all different from the ones on Tripping. There are three earlier McCartney solo tunes: 'My Love' and 'Let Me Roll It', which were both aired out on Wings Over America, and 'Live And Let Die', which has the distinction of being the only song to appear on both Tripping and Paul Is Live (as well as on Wings Over America). And instead of several note-for-note copies of songs from Flowers In The Dirt, we now have several note-for-note copies of songs from Off The Ground.  And, of course, we also get a few 'surprises', although these are mostly letdowns: 'Good Rockin' Tonight' isn't much of a surprise, since we just heard it on Unplugged (which also had 'We Can Work It Out' and 'Here, There And Everywhere' - included here); 'Robbie's Bit' is a solo acoustic piece by Robbie McIntosh, which is actually pretty good; 'Welcome To Soundcheck' is just crickets buzzing before we get to 'Hotel In Benidorm', a pointless jam with Paul trying to make up a song on top of it; and 'A Fine Day', a pointless jam with Paul trying - wait, didn't I just say that?  The rest of the album is okay, though - nothing great, but okay.  I will say that I think 'I Wanna Be Your Man' is pretty cool here, with its Bo Diddley beat, and that 'Magical Mystery Tour' is downright sluggish and, well, kinda crappy.  Luckily, it's only one CD (the UK got also got a vinyl version which was a double album, but hey, Tripping had been a triple album in its vinyl incarnation).

Rich Bunnell <cbunnell@ix.netcom.com> (25.08.99)

Yeah, a forgettable album, though I admit that I like "The Song We Were Singing" and "Beautiful Night," though the former only has maybe 2 or 3 lyrics. And I LOVE "The World Tonight." Rough-edged, at least for McCartney, and very ear-catching. But nothing else really jumps out. Yes, that's right, I don't like "Young Boy;" it's banal and boring and I can't believe it was listed as a highlight on the cover sticker. The only other song I remember (I no longer own this album) is "If You Wanna," and that one doesn't excite me too much. I DID give this one a few chances, but it just didn't impress, and while I'm sure Paul had tons of fun hanging around with Jeff Lynne and Steve Miller during production, he didn't convey that fun into a way where the listeners could feel it or enjoy it. And if Paul's gonna title the album after John's inspiration for the name "The Beatles," why couldn't he at least make the title track good? A 3.

Stanislaw Kozlowski <skozlowski@dsi.pekaosa.pl> (22.09.99)

Oh, no, no, You are completely wrong. After first listening to the record, just after first few notes I was sure that I can return to old good days of Beatles serious music that penetrates the minds of listeners.

Scott Aubertine <ScottA@mail.tds.net> (27.11.99)

I have been a Beatles fan since the Ed Sullivan show and a McCartney fan since the same time. The more I listen to Pie the more I feel that song for song, it may be the best McCartney album yet.

Mats Fjäll <mats.fjall@telia.com> (28.11.99)

This is his best record, at least of the ones I've heard.

mjcarney <mjcarney@netzero.net> (28.06.2000)

I almost agree with you here on this album.  I cannot understand why this album was so strongly praised, and Paul's previous release (which isn't all that great either Off The Ground) was panned as strongly as it was.  Sure Flaming Pie has some great moments, which is why when I first bought it a few years back I thought it was a tremendous return to form, yet further listens show the typical flaws of any McCartney album and then some.  However, the excellent songs such as  "The Song we Were Singing" which has a good strong melody, "Calico Sky"--with its beautiful George Martin production, "Souvenir" (I especially like the 20 second ending on this one for some reason) and "Great Day"--which are classics in and of themselves, and yes George "Great Day" has enough of a melody and a hook on it to be one of my favorite Paul solo songs, as it has everything a typical Paul McCartney song has always had, a great hook, a feel good melody, despite some meaningless lyrics.  It works well and ends the album terrifically.  So with these songs on here I was--even on the first listen-- astounded with the record at first.  But, although I am not dissapointed that I bought it, there are some God-awful numbers here which further listens helped define.  These would include songs such as the Steve Miller collaboration "Used to Be Bad" and the even worse (which is tough to beat) Ringo collaboration on "Really Love You".  Also the typical McCartney overproduced and overly sappy "Beautiful Night" really really Stink!   These numbers, along with some other relatively weak tracks drag down the album further.  It had some signs of promise, but does not work overall.  I would rate it a 5/10 and that is only for the highlights mentioned here. I would reserve this one mainly for completists only.

Dmitry Jilkin <dsj@dialup.ptt.ru> (26.07.2000)

Why? why is it so low? There are many good and VERY good songs, such as 'The world tonight' (ooh! I love this electric guitar), 'If you wanna', 'Young boy', 'Flaming pie'(Maybe the lyrics are stupid but the melody is fantastic), soft 'Heaven on a sunday', rockin' 'Souvenir' and beautiful 'Beautiful night' (sorry for play on words). The closing 'Great day' is maybe too soft but listenable, too.

<Wardo68@aol.com> (17.08.2000)

I hate Steve Miller so I skip his duet, and 'Really Love You' was an easy way for Ringo to get some royalties. But easily half of these songs are as good as any of his other good songs, and 'Beautiful Night' is another in a long line of GORGEOUS tunes he could write in his sleep. His best album of original tunes since Egg. But not as good as Run Devil Run.

Paul Stadden <paul@stadden.com> (03.09.2000)

This is one of the most underrated albums ever. I loved this album. Every song was fantastic.

<Ogdensgoneflake@aol.com> (10.09.2000)

To be honest I disagree with most of your reviews. Pink Floyd is great and the Rolling stones are overrate. However this review takes the cake. Flaming Pie is a fantastic album, one of Pauls best. There are a few flaws here and there like the title track and 'Somedays' but songs like 'Beautiful Night', 'Souvenir', 'Young Boy' and 'Little Willow' more than make up for any flaws.

Sergey Zhilkin <sergey_jilkin@mail.ru> (24.10.2000)

I'm not going to argue with you, George.So many people tried to persuade you but the rating is still the same. It's clear that nothing will make you love this record (except hard brick or bottle of vodka) and I'm not going to ask you to make rating higher. In my opinion it deserves 8/10 and fourth place in chart of Paul's best albums (I goes after Ram, Band on the run and London town).

Teresa Juarez Guzman <ggr74017@prodigy.net.mx> (26.11.2000)

This album was nominated for a grammy (not that this should be a compliment) for album of the year. Two of the other competitors were Radiohead's nice but over, and I mean overrated OK Computer and Bob Dylan's astonishing Time Out Of Mind. Now, I'm not much of a music expert, but a fan. And I disagree 180 grades from your perception, George, from Flaming Pie. It's not a masterpiece. O.K. and it surely wasn't meant to be one (just like Pipes Of Peace, which was following a comercial trace hat didn't do a lot of good to Paul in terms of critical acclaim, but that I sure can smile upon its playing!) While Dylan's masterpiece deserved "the gold" (or... "the gold" --that is, the Grammies, of course-- hasn't done a lot to deserve Dylan and McCartney... perhaps Radiohead, but what the hell...), McCartney didn't even bother to appear or reprise his songs in the ceremony. Flaming Pie isn't a crafty record but a fun one (even if it is in a kitschy manner for some listeners... certainly nor for me). I don't think of it as some sort of guilty pleasure (I'd leave that to any country anthem), but as a confirmation of Paul's succesful way to create pop music without sounding like a rehab act. How can you like "Maybe I'm Amazed" or "One Of These Days" (OK.... maybe you didn't like that one...) and do not have a sense of pleasure towards "Beautiful Night". Maybe I'm a product of nostalgia, but I know when an oldie's effort is worth to attend. (And don't give me that nineties' commercial punch as some sort of "selling out" sign. This album hasn't sold numbers near to ... agh... Celine Dion... When we discuss all those Billboard acts like... a double agh... Pavarotti and friends... then we can sure demand that their albums should have never been released, as you seemed to have meant in your 4 points review.) Or maybe Townsend and cia. were right. Rock is dead. Boo-hoo.

<DavesArtStudio@aol.com> (16.12.2000)

Your coments about flaming pie, and run devil run are so out of site its a wonder you know anything about music.I can tell your not any where near being musically talented, if you were maybe you could be a music critic after all.But I dont think you are so leave it to musicians who know better. [Spetiel othor noat: am I supozed to leeve it to Pol himself, then?]

Robert Tally <BtheW@aol.com> (27.12.2000)

I guess I could partially agree with George inasmuch as I think fans and critics made a little too much out of this album.  However, I can think of more than one song that stands out for me.  The three that I like the most are 'The Song We Were Singing' (which really captures the feeling of talking with friends into the wee hours), 'Flaming Pie' (a very amusing tune both musically and lyrically) and 'Great Day' (a typically catchy folk tune from Paul).  I also think the A-sides, 'Young Boy' and 'The World Tonight' are both pretty solid pop songs.  'Souvenir' works well in the R 'n' B vein. 'Heaven On A Sunday' isn't really my style, but it's still fairly strong.   The folk ballads tend to sound a little rigid, particularly 'Somedays' and 'Little Willow', with 'Calico Skies' perhaps a little looser and, for me, mildly enjoyable.  One song I can do without is the perfectly-crafted and overly-formal 'Beautiful Night'.  Every album has to have one of these, though, doesn't it?  The two improvisations, 'Used To Be Bad' and 'Really Love You' simply are no big deal, although Steve Miller's voice sounds refreshing on the former.  My least favorite track is probably 'If You Wanna', which is too redundant for me.  Generally, I guess I prefer Flowers In The Dirt and Off The Ground, but this one isn't far behind, and it can be said that McCartney was still keeping safely away from the depths of his mid-80s output.

Didier Dumonteil <dbdumonteil@wanadoo.fr> (18.03.2001)

Something has definitely changed here.THe music seems light pop,but the tone is different.Linda's health problems have occured and Paul's proverbial optimism seems to vanish into thin air.Of course there is the occasional cheerful tune ("young boy" ,and cool at that!),but listen to the wonderful "little willow"-IMHO,the best cut-:Paul tells us he's speaking about a friend,but we know it reflects his own situation too:that's why this song is among the very few of solo Paul that can move to tears.The last song is intriguing too:an old ditty that "we used to sing in the kitchen".You've got to remember that Paul lost his mother at such an early age that it's hard to get over this lost;that's why the family values were/are so dear to him.The gorgeous ballads "beautiful night" and chiefly "sometimes" are wistful,nostalgic to the core.And in "the world tonight",Paul's brooding."souvenir" sounds ominous when you know the rest.And look at the back of the artwork:Paul seems to say goodbye ...Should he end  on this one-run,devil is not a real new album-,he would retire gracefully.

Eric Rogozin <erogozin@mtu-net.ru> (11.04.2001)

You're absolutely wrong! I completely disagree with you on this point, because Flaming Pie is one of the greatest albums of Paul! It's a masterpiece! Songwriting of Paul was always amazing and on Flaming Pie he proves another time, that he's a great songwriter! Hey, it's perfect! "The World Tonight" and "Somedays" are gorgeous! Other tracks, especially "If You Wanna", "Young Boy", "Heaven On A Sunday", "Beautiful Night" are also excellent! And it's Ringo who plays on "Really Love You" (another groovy song) and "Beautiful Night".

Nick Dell'Oso <nickd@melbpc.org.au> (30.01.2002)

Flaming Pie it's a decent pop album, far better overall than his previous 3 or 4. I think it could be better and more interestingly produced, but if he was after greater simplicity then it's understandable why it sounds a bit "simple". My best picks are : "Heaven On A Sunday" - a very nice song, although I don't like the way it ends; but I'll get used to it - eventually. "Beautiful Night" is also very good and there are 3 to 4 others that are better than average and better than he's done for years. However I keep on coming back to "Used To Be Bad", it's an excellent song and doesn't pretend to be anything beyond what it is - also Paul sounds like he's having a good time singing it, and that's very important for any singer/songwriter. The indisputable dud is "Souvenir" - oh, what a shocker...

Bruno Müller <muller@mail.connection.com.br> (04.05.2002)

Hi, George

Dan Hogg <dantheman_sg27@hotmail.com> (31.12.2002)

Flaming Pie used to be a big deal to me. It came out right when I was getting over my Beatles obsession, so that summer after 6th grade I listened to this album non-stop. Now several years later, my opinion isn't so great, but I don't think it's as bad as you did. The acoustic ballads don't hold much water: "Somedays", "Calico Skies", "Heaven on a Sunday", and "Little Willow" all are OK but forgettable, even if the last one became a Princess DI tribute later on. Even worse are the jams "Used to be Bad" and "Really Love You", which I didn't like even during that summer. At least the former has Steve Miller, the other one is 5 minutes of nothing. The epic "Beautiful Night" is also a bit cringe-worthy, especially the LOOONG ending. But "The World Tonight" and "Young Boy" are perfectly fine pop-rockers (the latter was recorded in Steve Miller's studio at my home state, Idaho!!!). Not "If You Wanna", the 'hooks' are laughable, especially the one about 'making arrangemen! ts for the trip.' The title track is funny boogie-woogie, "Souvenir" and the Paul Simon-esque "Song we Were Singing" are minor gems, and "Great Day" is a fun closer, sounds like a front porch singalong.

Gerard Nowak <gero@gower.pl> (09.01.2003)

I'm rather indifferent to McCartney so I couldn't get insulted by the review and I think there's nothing wrong with it. I agree that the faster tracks are disappointing, but I really like some of the ballads: "Somedays" is my favourite McCartney solo track (maybe because I don't know many), I admire the semi-religious tone of it. As for the show closer, I've heard hundreds of acoustic songs in my life, and 'Great Day' DOES sound original to me, the melody is pretty wide, so to say, and the mood is uplifting, this is a nice one.

David Dickson <ddickson@rice.edu> (30.04.2004)

This is a good album. Hopefully not one of his "best", but still definitely good. I will admit to being a lazy motherf&@!&? and not listening to any of his albums except those that the All Music Guide deems "Best-Of-Artist." So that means that I've listened to this one, Ram, Band on the Run, and Tug of War. Ram is a masterpiece, and Band on the Run and Tug of War are pretty darn good. (None of those, however, hold a candle to Plastic Ono Band.) This one. . . well, it's got its merits. I think it just came out at the right time, so critics went hogwash over it. To tell the truth, this thing actually DOES move me in places. Just not enough to call it a "masterpiece."

Ivan Piperov <zwetan@stud.uni-frankfurt.de> (30.03.2000)

Paul McCartney rocks with Pink Floyd...that album is simply fun! Just listen how really hard he rocks all the time. And listen how he proves that he's still one of the finest rock-vocalists around.

mjcarney <mjcarney@netzero.net> (28.06.2000)

George, I have to disagree strongly with your review here.  Sure a return to roots for McCartney might seem like a bad idea, what with is Back in the USSR(which I have never heard) and even Unplugged(which is also enjoyable) releases, but this one is actually quite good.  I was as skeptical of this album, as you seem to be--maybe even more so, as Paul has in my opinion had the most disappointing solo career of the main three Beatles- he,Lennon, and Harrison.  I have bought over half of his releases (because there are always enough songs to drive me to spend my money and ultimately in time wishing that I hadn't), but this album was different.  I was curious enough to go ahead and buy the album, not reallly expecting too much. On the first few listens, I was thinking in my typical cynical Paul McCartney way--oh boy isn't this crap--but then it clicked with me. There is enough material on here to make this album pretty good.  "Blue Jean Bop", "Movie Magg" (which is great!!!), "Brown-eyed Handsome Man", "No Other Baby"and the natural Fats Domino cover "Coquette" are the highlights of the covers.  His originals aren't half bad either with "Try Not to Cry" being the stand out there.  This album is ultimately rewarding, even if it really isn't a substantial or artistic statement, or progression in Paul's music.  It ultimately works, and is fine overall.  I would rate it a 7.5/10 it's fun, energetic, but really not ultimately essential unless you are a fan.

Sergey Zhilkin <sergey_jilkin@mail.ru> (24.10.2000)

Oh, come on! It's not so bad as you say. Paul is surely having fun here and performance is okay. Why people dislike it so much? There are only four Paul's songs but they have their drive and tunes stay in your head for days ('Run devil run', 'What is it' and 'Try not to cry'). Don't take this record seriously, it's only fun! You don't expect anything groundbreaking from Ringo, do you? The same situation's here.

Robert Tally <BtheW@aol.com> (08.01.2001)

I was profoundly shocked when I first heard this album. I was completely expecting a continuation of CHOBA B CCCP, which was a collection of generally well-played but uninspired covers of '50s tunes that didn't stack up against the original versions. Not so here. The most striking thing about this album is that the rockers are so fast and hard. My favorite is 'She Said Yeah', which I'm dumbfounded to try to explain being on a Paul McCartney album. He's never rocked this well before (except maybe as a Beatle). Also in the fast and hard category are 'All Shook Up' (a great version!), 'I Got Stung', 'Party', 'Honey Hush', and two originals, 'Run Devil Run' and 'What It Is', both of which fit in really well with the oldies. Rocking hard, but maybe not so fast are 'Shake A Hand' and another original, 'Try Not To Cry'. There's a part of me that really wanted the whole album to be like this. It's the same thing that I liked about the first Clash album, or the early X albums. But there are actually some more laid back tracks here. Luckily, they're all pretty cool. 'Brown Eyed Handsome Man' is pretty upbeat, but calm compared to the big rockers. It's nevertheless a great version. 'Blue Jean Bop' basically bops, and with great style. 'Movie Magg' is a very charming Carl Perkins rockabilly tune. 'Lonesome Town' really captures the emotional content in its lyrics. 'No Other Baby' is the simplest, most stripped down arrangement on the album, and is downright cool in my estimation. 'Coquette' is a faithful rendering of a Fats Domino tune, which, I guess, is my least favorite, but we're talking about an album which doesn't have any songs I don't like.I can think of only one other McCartney (post-Beatles) album that I like all the songs on, and that one also has the word 'run' in its title.

Eric Rogozin <erogozin@mtu-net.ru> (11.04.2001)

George, here I also disagree with you. Run Devil Run sounds very fresh, cheerful and life-asserting. I just love this album, it's brilliant; I was very glad, when I bought it, it proves, that Paul WILL NEVER lose his musical talent. He is GENIUS, he just can't lose his musical abilities. Run Devil Run is superb! And it features David Gilmour and Ian Paice(!!!!!). Remember all Paul's works with David (who is a good guitarist): "No More Lonely Nights", "We Got Married", these songs are masterpieces. And when it also features Ian Paice on drums (who is one of the greatest drummers ever), it must be a masterpiece. What a collaboration!

Dan Hogg <dantheman_sg27@hotmail.com> (31.12.2002)

Run Devil Run threw me off-track at first, I wasn't prepared for mostly '50s covers. Once the initial shock was over, I was able to enjoy it. Can't compare it to the USSR one, I never heard it. Only 3 originals here, but they are all good. The title track is best: authentic Berry-esque rocker. 'Try Not to Cry" and "What it Is" are nice little rocker tributes to the late Linda. Everything else: covers. Paul pulls off amusing impressions of Gene Vincent ("Blue Jean Bop"), Carl Perkins ("Movie Magg"), and Fats Domino ("Coquette"). The mellow "No Other Baby" is an awesome obscurity, better than the more well-known "Lonesome Town", despite the latter's "Let it Be" homage. Simple rockers range from great ("She Said Yeah", "Honey Hush") to just OK ("Party", "I Got Stung"). My favorite of them all is "Brown-eyed Handsome Man", probably on account of the accordion. However, the Little Richard impression "Shake a Hand" is too long and not so great. Plus, "All Shook Up" is the only familiar tune here, where you can tell its inferior to the original. Heck, if I were more of a '50s buff, I might have similar attitude towards the rest of the songs. I'd rather leave it be and like this album for what it is.

John Ashfield <jashfield@mpcsd.org> (19.01.2006)

Oh please! This album has interesting production, it's in mono and is highly compressed, but hi fi, almost like a modern 50's sound. Paul sounds energetic and engaged. The band is really rocking, and 2 of the 3 new tunes are great. "Run Devil Run" is a great Chuck Berry style tune lyrically, but the music veers off the berry formula in the refrains, and "what it is" is a great stomping pop tune.

Bob Josef <Trfesok@aol.com> (14.09.2000)

An interesting experiment. I do tend to agree that the lengthy pieces with the symphony, while listenable, are kind of formless. It's as if he was trying to say, "I better not write any of those pop melodies, 'cause I'm a SERIOUS composer now." When actually, many of the great works have, lets face it, catchy melodies. (otherwise, stuff like Mozart's "The Magic Flute" wouldn't have been so popular -- but I digress..) If Paul had applied his natural gifts to these pieces, who knows what he could have come up with? The only thing that really stands out is a section of "Tuesday" that is rather dark and disturbing -- hardly the happy, trippy "Tuesday Afternoon" of the Moody Blues!

Robert Tally <BtheW@aol.com> (18.01.2001)

I think it's a good thing that McCartney ventured into the world of classical music. Even the Liverpool Oratorio, which has its share of dull stretches and uninspired melodies, works well in spots. And everything McCartney has composed since then has been a lot better. The piano piece 'A Leaf' was pretty listenable most of the way through, and had at least a couple of parts that were quite good. Standing Stone was (for the first three-quarters, anyway) surprisingly primeval and intense, with little by way of melody (it was more like an impressionist piece). With Working Classical, we get a mix of new compositions and several string quartet arrangements of well-known (and some not-so-well-known) Paul McCartney songs. All three orchestral pieces ('Tuesday', 'Spiral' and a new version of 'A Leaf') sound generally good to my ears. I'm not blown away, exactly, and there are a couple of moments that sound questionable, but most of the way through, I can honestly say that I enjoy the music. The two new string quartet pieces are definite highlights for me, but then I like string quartets. 'Haymakers' has a good spirit to it, and 'Midwife' is perhaps the best piece on the album, with a very strong melody and somewhat whimsical nature. Of the familiar material, I think the standouts are 'Warm And Beautiful' and 'Calico Skies', which I like this way, but didn't think much of on the original albums. 'Junk' and 'Golden Earth Girl' both sound good here, too, but they're both songs that I liked in the first place. 'My Love' and 'Somedays' are not exactly helped by the new arrangements, but also are not marred. 'The Lovely Linda', 'She's My Baby' and 'Maybe I'm Amazed' don't sound like string quartet pieces to me - just a little too bouncy for that.  In general, though, I'll give a thumbs up to Paul for opening up a whole new part of his brain (that's creatively - not surgically).

Sergey Zhilkin <sergey_jilkin@mail.ru> (08.03.2001)

Unfortunately, the only thing I can do here is to agree with you. In fact, that's not Paul's first experiment with classical music as you probably know. WC was preceded by Liverpool Oratorio (1st line in the charts), Thrillington and Standing stone (1-st place, too). WC was on the third line two months after it's release which is a great result, too. From the list above I like only WC and Thrillington, which is tolerable only because it's the classical version of my favourite Ram. Oratorio isn't music at all. And Paul isn't present there! He just wrote the lyrics that look like a bad parody on Floyd's The wall (not that Paul meant them to be a parody but it happened so) and that's all! Err.. going off topic, I suppose.

David <davi@euskalnet.net> (09.01.2002)

Hi, George. First of all I would like to apologise for my English.

Bruno Müller <muller@ccard.com.br> (05.05.2002)

I hope this won't become a habit, because if I start reviewing all the albums from artists I like, I guess I wouldn't do anything else in the world. But I also have some things to say about Driving Rain. I never had much hope that Paul would really come back to such a good shape.

Dan Hogg <dantheman_sg27@hotmail.com> (31.12.2002)

I sure wouldn't have expected Paul to come out with a new original album, after the passing of his wife Linda. But he did, with Driving Rain. I guess his new wife Heather has become an inspiration, esp. in the OK ballad with her name. This album isn't his best, but at least it has some experimental moments. "Riding Through Jaipur" is a bit pointless attempt to sound like George Harrison. "Rinse the Raindrops" is like nothing else McCartney's ever done, it exceeds 10 minutes and doesn't seem too long. Back to conventional McCartney, his sound is a bit more modern, but it doesn't get in the way of his sound too much ("Tiny Bubble", "Spinning on an Axis"). As far as ballads go, "From a Lover to a Friend" and "I Do" are nice, "Your Loving Flame" isn't. "Lonely Road" is a good rocker, "Your Way" is a nice ditty, and "She's Given up Talking" is another out-of-character move, brooding but great. Unfortunately, a lot of tracks are just there, without much to say ("Magic", ! "About You", and especially "Back in the Sunshine Again"). The title track is probably the worst title track to an album ever. Lame lyrics about going out, the album's "If You Wanna." Were it not for the musically-inept bonus track "Freedom", it would be the album's weakest track. But good for Paul, for rebounding with an album that isn't run-of-the-mill.

Carla Marie Sams <carlasams@stanley355.freeserve.co.uk> (18.01.2004)

This is the most experimental album i think hes done.he surrounded himself with some top class musicians, plugged in his bass and there you go.some of the songs are brilliant e,g 'From a lover to a friend', 'I Do', 'About You' and dare i say 'Heather'. 'Magic' is probably one of his worst songs the vocal is bad but i like the ending. 'Lonely Road' is average as is 'Back in the sunshine'. I love 'Your Loving Flame' and 'Your Way'. But most of all i appreciate the sound of this album. i know it charted badly but i hope when hes spent precious time with his daughter hell record again.

Javier Mora H <morahenao@epm.net.co> (20.11.2005)

driving rain is a great rock album.hey, this for everybody, PAUL wasn't supporting bush with 'freedom', look what paul said about that wrong interpretation:

Bill Slocum <slokes@optonline.net> (31.08.2004)

C'mon George, this is a fine McCartney live album. He paces the show very well, he doesn't give the Beatles songs such prominence that they bury the rest of his recorded output, yet he manages to honor the memories of two fallen Beatles, John and George, with very affecting performances of "Here Today" (for John) and "Something" (for George, of course; if McCartney had tried to sing it in a more polished fashion you might have suggested he was trying to steal the Quiet One's thunder; the Beatles took a lot of cues from England's music hall tradition, and I see Paul's solo with ukelele as a step in that direction.) Unlike you, I didn't have the chance to see this particular Paul tour, but I like the result here better than that from the tour I did see, Tripping The Live Fantastic, as the Beatles performances on Back In The U.S. weren't perfunctory and there was a real appreciation for the whole of the man's catalog.

Acarreta, Carlos <Carlos_Acarreta@education.gov.ie> (24.11.2005)

Chaos and Creation in the Backyard is McCartney's most consistent album in ages, and also his best since at least 1989's Flowers in the Dirt. It is certainly full of the best melodies and catchiest hooks Macca has managed to come up with for a long time.

Joe <jcjh20@hotmail.com> (24.11.2005)

I'm glad you liked this album enough to give it a 12. It sure is easy to just pass this album off as "boring" or "ponderous", since i suppose if you're not in the right mood it could seem like that at times. However, i'm glad you were able to see pass that and judge the album on this particular mood that you don't hear from Paul very often. Needless to say, Nigel was an excellent choice of a producer for this album, and the production and arrangements are top notch. Paul obviously is not just shooting for another hit, he's genuinely putting together an album from the heart, an album that he wants to make.

Marco La Manno <frightwolf_2005@yahoo.com> (24.11.2005)

I love your review on Chaos and Creation, because something in my head was thinking that you were going to give it an average kinda score like Bigger Bang. I'm so glad you think 'English Tea' is part of the Top 3; that's my favorite song off of the whole album! The beautiful descending chords are to die for, and it sounds a lot like 'For No One', with the two verses, a chorus, a verse, a quick wind instrumental, and a verse. 'For No One' ends with the chorus, though, but overall, it sounds a bit similar in that respect. The main difference is that 'English Tea' is not in such a depressing minor key, and it has some beautiful imagery in the words. Not that the rest of the album doesn't deliver. My favorites are 'Fine Line', 'Jenny Wren', 'English Tea', 'Riding to Vanity Fair', and 'Anyway'. I wasn't surprised that you didn't like 'Jenny Wren', but I don't see what you have with his guitar songs. You had also thought 'Calico Skies' was bad, when I think it's a very beautiful song, but that's a different story. Glad you liked the album as a whole though!

Alexander Demetriou <demetriou_alexander@yahoo.co.uk> (24.11.2005)

Thanks for the review, many of us have been impatiently waiting for it! Change "minor triumph" to "major triumph" and turn "Jenny Wren" into red (instead of its current blue) and I'll agree with you... More seriously, IMHO, this album is splendid from A to Z and if really (really, really) I had to deprive it of a song, it would be "Friends to go" or "English Tea", NOT "Jenny Wren". Of course, it is somewhat similar to some classics, but it's just too beautiful to be ignored. You know the way people say Magical Mystery Tour is no good because it sounds too much like that other 1967 chef-d'oeuvre, well it's sort of the same thing here. I know that I wouldn't say goodnight tonight to Jenny just because I was with a black bird yesterday.

Alexey Provolotsky <alpro@tut.by> (15.12.2005)

Loved this album. I haven’t heard much by Paul yet, but this is at least as strong as Venus and Mars, a record he made 30 (!) years ago. Okay, so the diversity approaches zero, but the consistency is amusing. But speaking about McCartney, we HAVE to discuss melodies. And these are the melodies that make me picture someone like, say, Chris Martin, nervously biting his nails. Well, maybe that doesn’t say much, but the melodies here are really strong.

<mirenj@cesce.es> (20.12.2005)

Hi, George. It's good to see you have come back again. Before saying anything about Macca's last album, I would like to say I was a bit surprised when reading your new intro in the Fab Four page. I mean, I understand your "oversaturation". I don't listen to them as usual as I used to, either... but I know I will never get tired of them the same way I will never get tired of my wife and sons (perhaps because they are great beyond any measure and this matters so much to me?), so every now and then... Beatlemusic is welcome in my ears.

Rajesh Srinivasan <rsrinivasan910@gmail.com> (27.02.2006)

Honestly, when I first listened to this album I was tremendously disappointed. The songs seemed worn and aged, and the album was difficult to sit through at first. After a while the songs grew on me a little (especially after I attended the McCartney concert in Las Vegas) but still I was not satisfied; therefore, I avoided it for months until I finally got over myself yesterday and took another listen. And finally it clicked; every track was enjoyable (even 'At the Mercy' and 'A Certain Softness', two tracks I usually can't stand). You nailed it perfectly: it's as if Paul is telling us stories of his past, just looking back on his life. Every song is absolutely touching (even 'Jenny Wren', although like you said, it's okay for Ray Davies to reuse melodies but Macca is above that) and the atmosphere that's created is wonderful. Paul's voice is older, but as good as ever, and it is just overflowing with thick emotion. You would never guess he was 63. I solid 8, no doubt.

James Alexander <badnineteenthcentury@hotmail.com> (06.03.2006)

I have not written before, partly because I am not much of an adder-to-lists. But I think your pages on music are quite possibly the most sustained and engaging I've ever read on the subject. I agree with the prejudice that music is pretty worthless since the sixties and seventies, except for the fragments which come from the originals. My purpose in writing was to suggest, just having heard Chaos and Creation in the Backyard, that you'll eventually come to give it a ten. I'm convinced it's better than Band on the Run, which everyone always says is McCartney's best: but is actually fairly patchy and a bit dogged by wingishness. I have my own rather petty theory about Wings: which is that McCartney's instinct was always to be a King rather than a Hero. Lennon was a Hero, if not quite a working-class one. But McCartney was a King: he wanted courtiers. And his various bands were composed of courtiers. All the Wings records, and even the later Flowers in the Dirt and Off the Ground are spoilt by both rather shabby playing (in the case of the earlier records) and too professional playing (in the case of the later ones). McCartney's early masterpiece is Ram, as you say, because it is McCartney: part of the fascination with his genius, is hearing that intensive quality which even his throwaway nonsense has: those effortless confections and doodles which are an intrinsic part of his genius. The glory of Chaos and Creation is that it is both McCartney, intensively playing over and against himself, and yet it is also, as you say, fully finished. It is not just a minor triumph: it is a masterpiece. It has a conviction which most of his other records lack: exactly because it does not venture into courtliness. McCartney is fascinating: in the Beatles his interaction with the other genius in Lennon, and in those minor geniuses of Harrison and Starr (I agree with Lennon on them: that all four had some musical sense which transcended their limitations on their instruments). But his interactions with Laine, Wonder, Jackson, Gilmour, Townshend etc are just epic, or curious, or extensive: one thinks, 'Look who McCartney is playing with now'. But there is no creative tension: the tragedy of the end of the Beatles was that each of the four of them lost any tension. Lennon dramatised himself in terms of Yoko Ono, but even that was really just the unleashing of his angry egotism which felt outraged at occasionally finding itself paying music court to McCartney. Both Lennon and McCartney, after the break, were better on their own, unadorned. Lennon's interview with Rolling Stone in 1970 is a sublime reflection on the problem: what we know about McCartney is that he would never be capable of such frankness. You are right to say McCartney has lacked any suffering which has affected his music, until perhaps recently. His music doesn't age, like most modern music, actually. But not much does (one exception is Roy Harper's Green Man, which is a successful musical capturing of aged reflections). And so McCartney is, in a way, writing, it seems, like a thirty or forty year old. I tried the guitar once, and still play, but am rather glad I never succeeded with it, because of that arrested development evident in even the greatest music of this modern era. No one gets beyond it, or not far; even the supposedly mature people like Dylan and Joni Mitchell collapse at some point: it seems that this music demands a certain sort of youthful orientation which is hard to sustain with age. Every modern musician has a crisis like this: and the eighties was really just the massed crisis of what the old sixties and seventies people were going to do next. They were better writers than the younger people but collapsed into that gated reverb flat era of eighties badness. I am not sure Gabriel's Intruder was such a great development; and disagree with your views of later Kate Bush versus earlier: her early freshness, and youth, and girlish strangeness (that fascination with youth: she is the embodiment of late adolescent strangeness, and it could not last), shade off into an almost unpleasant hysteria sometimes in the later records, dressed up in an unfortunate, almost guitarless, bad drumming noisiness. Its subjective, of course. I do like what you have written for its subjectivity, although I see there's a bit of tension between that and your objective attempt to do justice to Yes, Dylan etc. But it is coherent, and requires salutation, not least because you do it so well and eruditely (do any of your readers know anything about Hegel?), despite that odd argot which I've learnt mostly from you: that cool-rocks-shredding type argot, which actually suits the subject matter. I'd like to think you could somehow publish what you have written: it leaves behind the rather pale sites which were there before yours. I came to your site, by the way, a few years ago, when I was looking for information on Family: a band so obscure only you had written about them. If you like, you can chop out what I've written above, and add it to the Chaos and Creation page. But my main purpose is to say that I've admired your stuff for a long time.

Robert Tally <BtheW@aol.com> (11.01.2001)

There's one thing about McCartney hits - they make for compilation albums that are fair at best (even when they're 'all the best'). This one's no exception; about half the songs are really good and the other half are those annoying ones that make you switch to another radio station (well, okay - that's what I do, anyway).

Bob Josef <Trfesok@aol.com> (19.05.2002)

This singles compilation amply demonstrates why Paul could be great, and why he could be maddening. For me, nothing saves "My Love," the dopey "Let 'Em In" and "Silly Love Songs" (get new lyrics and a new arrangement around that bass line, and you might have something, though). But a lot of people would say the same about "Uncle Albert" (which is bizarre and silly, but clever and fun and complex) or "With a Little Luck" (pretty cool melody and nice warm synth parts, actually), which is why this stuff could never be totally dismissed, even by his detractors. Still, this is definitely worth the money for "Junior's Farm," "Mull of Kintyre," "Hi, Hi, Hi" and the "Another Day," which are all singles that were well Beatle-worthy, as well as the Band on the Run tracks. Just use the CD programming to pretend Red Rose Speedway and At the Speed of Sound never existed.

No reader comments yet.

No reader comments yet.

No reader comments yet.