RonJonSurfer Posted November 21, 2007 Report Share Posted November 21, 2007 McCartney Dreaded Solo 'Best Of' Sir Paul McCartney was terrified of making a greatest hits album - because he didn't think his solo efforts were good enough Sir Paul McCartney was terrified of making a greatest hits album - because he didn't think his solo efforts were good enough. The Beatles star admits he "dreaded" the prospect of a compilation of his work after the group disbanded in 1970, but was pleasantly surprised by the end result, The McCartney Years. He says, "I thought, 'Oh no God, there's not enough good stuff yet.' "But looking at it, I think some of the stuff I was a bit scared of, I don't need to be scared of. Especially as it's all been re-polished and buffed up. They seem to stand up quite well." Copyright World Entertainment News Network 2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edna Posted November 21, 2007 Report Share Posted November 21, 2007 Sir Paul McCartney was terrified of making a greatest hits album - because he didn't think his solo efforts were good enough. In this case, Sir Paul was right... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Levis Posted November 21, 2007 Report Share Posted November 21, 2007 's true... it's not very good, really Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Seeker Posted November 21, 2007 Report Share Posted November 21, 2007 (edited) I like Maybe I'm Amazed a lot... Young Boy is nice too, and Wonderful Christmas Time is the song I associate Christmas with the most... annnnd... that's it. Edited November 21, 2007 by Guest forgot a song Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue_n_white Posted November 21, 2007 Report Share Posted November 21, 2007 I liked some of his "Wings" stuff. "Band On The Run","Jet" and "Live And Let Die". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweet Jane 61 Posted November 21, 2007 Report Share Posted November 21, 2007 Maybe I'm Amazed is it for me...sad that he was a Beatle and doesn't have enough good solo work to put out a decent greatest hits album. And many back in the day said he was the best one of The Beatles...no way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue_n_white Posted November 21, 2007 Report Share Posted November 21, 2007 Oh yeah and I love "Maybe I'm Amazed" too. GREAT song. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJonSurfer Posted November 21, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 21, 2007 I am not as hard on Paul's solo career. There was a lot of stuff I really appreciated. As somebody who thinks John was the heart and soul of The Beatles....I think the following would be a great McCartney collection: 1. Maybe I'm Amazed 2. Too Many People 3. Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey 4. Smile Away 5. Let Me Roll It 6. Nineteen Hundred and Eighty Five 7. Helen Wheels 8. Medicine Jar 9. Call Me Back Again 10. Beware My Love 11. Hi Hi Hi 12. Junior's Farm 13. Mull of Kintyre There are many artists that don't have two songs I would want in a collection. (Can one song be a collection?) Anyway, these 13 songs are pretty good in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edna Posted November 21, 2007 Report Share Posted November 21, 2007 I love the two first albums. In fact, I bought "Ram" last year and I´ll get me the "McCartney" cd as soon as I can. When he released them in the early seventies I thought that could be the second part of his amazing carreer as he, no doubt, is a very talented man. Not that it sounded Beatle or it reminds me of my teens, no, I really like those two albums. I was deceived by all he did after. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue_n_white Posted November 21, 2007 Report Share Posted November 21, 2007 I am not as hard on Paul's solo career. There was a lot of stuff I really appreciated. As somebody who thinks John was the heart and soul of The Beatles....I think the following would be a great McCartney collection: 1. Maybe I'm Amazed 2. Too Many People 3. Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey 4. Smile Away 5. Let Me Roll It 6. Nineteen Hundred and Eighty Five 7. Helen Wheels 8. Medicine Jar 9. Call Me Back Again 10. Beware My Love 11. Hi Hi Hi 12. Junior's Farm 13. Mull of Kintyre There are many artists that don't have two songs I would want in a collection. (Can one song be a collection?) Anyway, these 13 songs are pretty good in my opinion. Damn,I didn't realize how many songs I liked. Like most of these if not all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJonSurfer Posted November 21, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 21, 2007 I didn't include some of his bigger hits like Jet, etc. Here are the songs Paul included on his Greatest Hits album: 1. Listen To What The Man Said 2. Band On The Run 3. Another Day 4. Live And Let Die 5. Jet 6. My Love 7. Silly Love Songs 8. Pipes Of Peace 9. C Moon 10. Hi Hi Hi 11. Let 'Em In 12. Goodnight Tonight 13. Junior's Farm 14. Mull of Kintyre 15. Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey 16. With A Little Luck 17. Coming Up 18. No More Lonely Nights Disc: 2 1. Let Me Roll It 2. The Lovely Linda 3. Daytime Nightime Suffering 4. Maybe I'm Amazed 5. Helen Wheels 6. Bluebird 7. Heart Of The Country 8. Every Night 9. Take It Away 10. Junk 11. Man We Was Lonely 12. Venus And Mars/Rockshow 13. Back Seat Of My Car 14. Rockestra Theme 15. Girlfriend 16. Waterfalls 17. Tomorrow 18. Too Many People 19. Call Me Back Again 20. Tug Of War 21. Medley: Bip Bop/Hey Diddle/I Am Your Singer 22. No More Lonely Nights Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lea Posted November 21, 2007 Report Share Posted November 21, 2007 I never thought I'd say this but, Paul's statement makes me feel kind of bad for him. When I was a kid Paul was my 2nd favorite Beatle after George of course. When I got older he was my least favorite because of his arrogance. It's sad when someone puts that much time and effort into his craft only to say "he didn't think his solo efforts were good enough". The sad part is as edna said he's right. Maybe I'm Amazed is about the only song he put out after The Beatles parted that was even close to good. It's really sad to say that. Now the other band members on the other hand excluding Ringo (I love Ringo ) wrote some great songs. Ringo did have one good song he put out and that was "It Don't Come Easy" but his longevity as a performer surprises most Beatles fans I think. He still has a huge following and has played with a lot of great bands. Personally I don't care for his style these days but a lot of other people sure do. John and George put out some great music after The Beatles. I love Watching The Wheels, Imagine and many others by John. George didn't do so bad either. I am planning to nominate Cracker Box Palace for the tens at some point. I think after the Beatles split Paul's music suffered the most. He made a lot of money but the music just wasn't that great. And as usual that's just my opinion. The Beatles are in my top two of favorite bands but Wings I've never really cared for at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLizard Posted November 21, 2007 Report Share Posted November 21, 2007 Maybe I'm Amazed is one of the best love songs ever. Other than that, Paul's solo stuff is just ok. Strange that it turned out that way, because I've always thought that Paul was the most musically advanced of the four, but I prefer John and George's solo material. Of course, none of the four made much that stands up next to the Beatles catalog. John came close a few times. George came close too, maybe once or twice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue_n_white Posted November 21, 2007 Report Share Posted November 21, 2007 I agree about "Maybe I'm Amazed" being one of the best love songs. I think Paul really sounded great on that song too. Always been a big fave of mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edna Posted November 21, 2007 Report Share Posted November 21, 2007 "Maybe I´m Amazed" - Paul McCartney Just beautiful. Enjoy... Lea and Tim, I fully agree with both of you on every point... except that I don´t like Ringo but yes, "It Don´t Come Easy" is a great song... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lea Posted November 21, 2007 Report Share Posted November 21, 2007 I don't really care for the direction Ringo's music went but he cracks me up when I see interviews with him. He is a funny witty guy. He aged well to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Ry 71 Posted November 21, 2007 Report Share Posted November 21, 2007 I'd like to point something out quickly (and I don't care if you complain if I'm overdosing on the place, because many of my musical beliefs nearly fit a dime to Mr. Starostins'. Paul's musical output has surpassed his Beatles legacy in the terms of quantity, but not of quality... wait, that's the rub. There is a myth in among the world's population, and that myth is as follows: Paul was great as a Beatle, but his solo stuff sucks. This myth seems to be shared by everybody, starting with people who hate the Beatles and ending with 'serious' critics who waste half of their lives trying to convince their readers that Paul's solo work lacks 'substance' and is pretty lightweight as compared to his days in the Beatles. The myth is, of course, easy to accept. First, many people simply do not want to waste their time hunting for Paul's albums. They are happy enough with their Beatles collection and prefer to ignore McCartney's solo material because they don't have the will, the cash, the time or the guts to assemble a second collection. To justify this, they readily accept the myth. Second, 'solo' artists in general aren't really that respected in this world of ours, especially if they come from formerly successful and highly praised bands: a misconception, but so it is. Third, there are ageist problems: some people dismiss everything a certain rock artist has written after thirty simply because, well, simply because he's thirty years old. Fourth, many people are only acquainted with some of his sappier stuff that regularly comes on the radio - like 'My Love' or 'Silly Love Songs' - and, quite naturally, make the assumption that he's 'too sappy'. Bah. It is, however, obvious, that once one really considers the strong and weak sides of the myth, it can't help but be shattered to pieces. Of course, Paul's solo work can't help being inferior to the Beatles' material, but for one reason and one reason only: solo Paul has no John, George, or Ringo to contribute their material as well. This way, the principle of 'selection' doesn't really work: while in the Sixties only the best contributions of the band were accepted onto the albums - compositions that all, or most band members, were in agreement about - in the Seventies and later on Paul had no-one to control him (unless, of course, you want to count Linda or Denny Laine, but I wouldn't do that if I were you). On the other hand, if you take any amount of later-day Beatles albums – Abbey Road, The Beatles, whatever - and select all the McCartney tracks, I don't really see how this stuff could be significantly better than any selected amount of Paul's best solo period (sometime in between 1970-79). Throughout the Seventies, Paul had been working on exactly the same formula, if his output can really be called 'formulaic': it's so diverse, varied and often experimental that it mostly defies classification. I'm perfectly aware that there are people who even despise Macca's work with the Beatles, especially 'lightweight' stuff like 'Maxwell's Silver Hammer' or 'Honey Pie' or 'Martha My Dear'; however, any person who enjoys these songs, but closes his eyes on Paul's solo albums like Ram or Band On The Run, is either deeply strange or simply let himself get too deeply engulfed in the myth I have described above. The first period of Paul's solo career, in fact, made him succeed where his colleagues could not: after the euphoria caused by Lennon's Plastic Ono Band and Harrison's All Things Must Pass had died down, Paul suddenly found himself the only Beatle who could still enjoy an almost unlimited commercial success, with albums going platinum and constant Top Ten singles and stuff. The critics initially hated his output - they were still convinced he was to blame for ruining the Beatles - but the public didn't give a damn, and its tastes in the early Seventies were civilized enough to recognize that Paul's talent wasn't yet starting to wane. After Band On The Run, though, Paul got the long-awaited critical acclaim at last and spent the next two or three years basking in the glow of his newly-found fame: believe it or not, he was almost as big as Led Zeppelin, and weren't Led Zep the Beatles of the Seventies (commercial-wise, that is)? Paul's Seventies output is extremely interesting: always diverse, always melodic, rarely banal, and, of course, plenty of various moods and hooks. If you're new to Paul, do not make the mistake of dismissing him as 'too sappy' or 'too sentimental'. True, his work has never been as pure-hearted and sincere as John's moving, autobiographical compositions; and if you're looking forward to finding something about the meaning of life, go away. Paul's work is primarily destined for entertainment - sometimes funny, sometimes silly, sometimes slightly sad, without any deep sense to it. But who needs deep sense when you have these flawless melodies and albums stuffed to the brim with inventive, impeccable musical ideas? And, while balladry does play a significant part in Paul's career, it's usually compensated with multiple forays into other genres: country, blues, boogie-woogie, pop rock, bluegrass, even heavy metal on occasion. If you're still in doubt, pick up some of his more rockin' stuff like Venus And Mars or Back To The Egg and see for yourself... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Seeker Posted November 21, 2007 Report Share Posted November 21, 2007 Not related to what Ry said just now (interesting article though... he's probably got a point somehow but I've listened to two or three of his solo albums (please don't ask me which ones... that was years ago, though maybe that was part of the reason for why I didn't like them ) and they just don't strike me as much as his stuff with the Beatles... they hardly ever strike/struck me at all) but I think it's funny how he thought his songs weren't good enough for a best-of, but then compiled one (or gave his consent) all the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now