Forums dot lukpac.org

Outside of Kanye's latest release from two weeks back, the two most 'exciting' releases seem to be the new Stones album and Macca's new one. The Stones album is a disappointment in sales despite generally positive - borderline positive - reviews. It hit #3 with 129,000 sold, less than the 135,000-150,000 range that most predicted/hoped for. I think there are a few mildly interesting songs, the Stones play well, the production's ain't bad as Don Was doesn't slick things up too much. In other words, meat-and-potatoes music, well-played but uninspired songwriting. If I had Dirty Work and Steel Wheels, it would sit comfortably next to them, but there's a reason I didn't keep either of those albums.

So what about Macca's new one? It plain sucks. Some of the reviews are similar to those written for Driving Rain and if you dig through archival reviews kept on various fan sites, it resembles those written for Flaming Pie and Flowers In The Dirt. All of those were hailed as latter day comebacks, but they were all mediocre. At least the production is better, I heard one guy say that the productions on McCartney's albums feel dated two days after they're released, but I think this one will hold up a little bit longer. The problem is the songs, which are boring as hell. Has anyone heard Driving Rain or McCartney's song on Vanilla Sky? It reminds me of that. Even 'Fine Line' and 'Jenny Wren' or whatever it's called, those two songs have gotten the best reviews but they're still boring as hell to me. And some of the words are awful. Paul isn't writing crappy lyrics that match the depths of 'Let 'Em In' or 'Ebony and Ivory,' but these are pretty awful in their own way, occasionally sappy, sometimes maudlin.

There's NOTHING on this album worth keeping. The last all-original album I bought was Flaming Pie. I held on to that because I liked a few songs and figured it would grow on me, after all it did get good reviews. I burned three songs for a CD-R comp and never went back to the original once. An old roommate had Driving Rain, I never asked to hear it and I don't recall him playing it past the first week he bought it.

If you really want to buy new music from an old artist, consider the Stones album, but I doubt you'll be returning to that one either.

The bonus DVD doesn't seem too bad, I have only viewed about 1/3 of it though.

What the hell, with my copy (Best Buy) you have a bonus track download ("Comfort of love") and a chance to win a Lexus.

I liked it thus far; then again, I think I may be a sucker for Nigel Godrich production. "Riding to Vanity Fair" *is* a track from Sea Change.

Xenu wrote:"Riding to Vanity Fair" *is* a track from Sea Change.

I wonder if it's a coincidence that that's my favorite cut, by far.

MK wrote:In other words, meat-and-potatoes music, well-played but uninspired songwriting. If I had Dirty Work and Steel Wheels, it would sit comfortably next to them, but there's a reason I didn't keep either of those albums.

Small tangent... Never had Dirty Work, had Steel Wheels on tape (!), got Voodoo Lounge when it was released, and never got BtB. I remember when VL came out it was hailed as being "back to basics" and "raw Stones" or somesuch. I finally got Steel Wheels on CD the other day, and I was really struck by how much it sounded like VL. Not that it makes either album worse for it, but I don't think there was the leap with VL that many perceived at the time. My general feeling is that latter day Stones (SW and beyond) all follows the same basic formula, and that there are usually a few "pretty/really good" songs along with a bunch of decent but at the same time not-too-memorable stuff.

So what about Macca's new one? It plain sucks.

'You're going to make a good album'

lukpac wrote:

So what about Macca's new one? It plain sucks.

'You're going to make a good album'

CNN wrote:Time magazine breathlessly declared "Chaos" to be McCartney's first album that matters since the Beatles broke up 35 years ago.

Uh, RAM? Fuck you, Time Magazine. Seriously! And I'm not as huge a fan of Band On The Run, Red Rose Speedway, or the first album, but they hardly DON'T MATTER.

Sorry, sometimes the hyperbole (when it tries to rewrite history) gets my nuts twisted.

Ew, the AP picked "Vanilla Sky"? I could see a case for "My Brave Face," not a favorite but it was a hit, but "Back On My Feet" was the better (and best, IMO) Costello collaboration recorded by Paul, and "The World Tonight" and "Souvenir" are much better than either, and RUN DEVIL RUN is an damn good covers album (+3 originals), easily his best outside of BAND ON THE RUN, IMO.

Jon Pareles, Jim DeRogatis, Greg Kot, guys who don't hold their punches on Macca's post-Beatles work, they gave C&C... a decent review, so I had my hopes up, but I just hate it.

There's a nice production wrapped around all the songs, and "Riding To Vanity Fair" is a good example, I like it when the piano chords crash in on "Too Much Rain," but the songs don't do it for me. Going back "Riding To Vanity Fair," Paul's trying, it's a break-up song (which helps David's SEA CHANGE comparison), but it doesn't really connect. I dunno, Paul's singing how he's had enough of the woman he's with, someone who didn't "seem to have any to spare" when it came to "friendship," and the critics are talking about smoldering anger, but I just ain't feeling it. There's something kind of lacking in this song. He piles on the details but they feel a bit shallow and generic (except for a few references to a rich lifestyle).

Calico Skies.

There's no shame in continuing to slug it out at 63, but the guy just doesn't have it anymore. There's no more denying it.

I'm a longtime McCartney fan, so I've given each new release what I've considered a fair shake. The most recent one I still own is the 'Unplugged' set from '91. The most recent one I occasionally have a hankering to hear is 'Flaming Pie,' and I know I can find that in any used CD store on earth if I want it.

This new one, though.....Jesus, "lifeless" doesn't even do it justice. It's about as genuine as McCartney's latest dye job. I'll give it another spin or two to see if anything connects, but I'm not optimistic.

(Are we the idiots, or is the gushing at SH.tv a little, ah, over the top?)

If it wasn't for Macca and the Stones, most of them would never buy 'new' music.

dudelsack wrote:Uh, RAM? Fuck you, Time Magazine. Seriously! And I'm not as huge a fan of Band On The Run, Red Rose Speedway, or the first album, but they hardly DON'T MATTER.

Sorry, sometimes the hyperbole (when it tries to rewrite history) gets my nuts twisted.

Well...Paul likes to rewrite some history so....

Citizen Dan wrote:'m a longtime McCartney fan, so I've given each new release what I've considered a fair shake. The most recent one I still own is the 'Unplugged' set from '91. The most recent one I occasionally have a hankering to hear is 'Flaming Pie,' and I know I can find that in any used CD store on earth if I want it.

This new one, though.....Jesus, "lifeless" doesn't even do it justice. It's about as genuine as McCartney's latest dye job. I'll give it another spin or two to see if anything connects, but I'm not optimistic.

I've heard three songs off it and it doesn't grab me one bit, and I'm pretty much in the same camp as you willing to give each a release a fair shake.

Out of his recent output, I really like Flaming Pie and Run Devil Run (which can also be had at every single used CD store). I bought "Driving Rain" for the sake of having it and after using it once on a sleepness night as a sleep aid, I never played it again. "Lonely Road" was a good track though.

Plus "Freedom" really killed it for me. I'm sure Bin Laden was shitting bricks when he heard that. I could fart a more complex chord structure.

I'm sure the eventual used run will begin in the next couple of weeks and I will foolishly pick up a copy to pretty much confirm what I already know.

(Are we the idiots, or is the gushing at SH.tv a little, ah, over the top?)

At least we keeping our gushing/moaning confined to one thread, not seventy.

lukpac wrote:
Small tangent... Never had Dirty Work, had Steel Wheels on tape (!), got Voodoo Lounge when it was released, and never got BtB. I remember when VL came out it was hailed as being "back to basics" and "raw Stones" or somesuch. I finally got Steel Wheels on CD the other day, and I was really struck by how much it sounded like VL. Not that it makes either album worse for it, but I don't think there was the leap with VL that many perceived at the time. My general feeling is that latter day Stones (SW and beyond) all follows the same basic formula, and that there are usually a few "pretty/really good" songs along with a bunch of decent but at the same time not-too-memorable stuff.

Well, at least Bridges to Babylon tried something new. Of course everybody thought it was shit. Same thing with Goats head soup. I think Bridges is probably their best post-Tattoo albums. Haven't heard the new one yet but it will most likely disappoint after all the hype.

Can't say I know much on BtB other than Saint Of Me, which I liked.

All Music Guide is fairly amusing on Bigger Bang:

The tight, sleek, muscular band showcased there was a surprise -- they played with a strength and swagger they hadn't had in years -- but a bigger surprise is that A Bigger Bang finds that reinvigorated band carrying its latter-day renaissance into the studio, turning in a sinewy, confident, satisfying album that's the band's best in years. Of course, every Stones album since their highly touted, self-conscious 1989 comeback, Steel Wheels, has been designed to get this kind of positive press, to get reviewers to haul out the cliché that this is their "best record since Exile on Main St." (Mick Jagger is so conscious of this, he deliberately compared Bigger Bang to Exile in all pre-release publicity and press, even if the scope and feel of Bang is very different from that 1972 classic), so it's hard not to take any praise with a grain of salt, but there is a big difference between this album and 1994's Voodoo Lounge. That album was deliberately classicist, touching on all of the signatures of classic mid-period, late-'60s/early-'70s Stones -- reviving the folk, country, and straight blues that balanced their trademark rockers -- and while it was often successful, it very much sounded like the Stones trying to be the Stones. What distinguishes A Bigger Bang is that it captures the Stones simply being the Stones, playing without guest stars, not trying to have a hit, not trying to adopt the production style of the day, not doing anything but lying back and playing.

Jelly wrote:Well, at least Bridges to Babylon tried something new. Of course everybody thought it was shit. Same thing with Goats head soup.

I *like* Goats Head Soup.

I also like Bridges. "Low Down," "Gun Face" and several others are actually pretty nifty.

I put Goats Head Soup on a few weeks ago. Didn't do much for me.

On the other hand, I put in Voodoo Lounge today, and other than a few weak tracks in the middle, I quite liked it. Take out 3 or 4 songs and I think that would be a damn fine album.