|
|
Post by Eggman on Nov 17, 2003 17:40:27 GMT
A critique about Faul's "Back In The US" album By David Samuels Is McCartney insecure? Is he jealous of Lennon? Is there money involved? All of these questions are more interesting than Back in the U.S., an album that provides listeners with a rough idea of what it would be like to have Paul McCartney play your wedding. On "All My Loving," the ex-Beatle is audibly short of breath. On "Blackbird," the schmaltziest Beatle follows lines like "take these sunken eyes and learn to see" with a creamy lounge-singer "mmmmmm." "Carry That Weight" features Paul forgetting the words and repeating the phrase "Oh, that magic feeling," like the Sunday afternoon entertainment at the Daughters of Israel nursing home lounge. What McCartney is selling here is the idea that baby boomers don't have to be afraid of death. Paul is still up there smiling, happy to strip his songs of any hint of mortality, loss, love, anger, passion, or other emotions that might make the aging members of his audience the least bit uncomfortable. What they want is the straight nostalgia trip, slathered in butter and corn syrup—and Paul McCartney, with more than $1 billion in the bank already, wants nothing more than to give his audience want they want. In this sense, at least, McCartney is the same as he always was—the consummate pro. By the time one reaches the sing-along version of "Hey Jude" in which McCartney compliments the audience by half-growling, half-squealing "you sound so sweet tonight," it is also clear that he has left rock 'n' roll behind for the emotionally shuttered world of a Lawrence Welk or Liberace—a song-and-dance man who plays all the instruments and does his own arrangements while smiling his way through songs about heartbreak and loneliness for a loving audience. What is finally touching about this album is that it shows how much the consummate craftsman and performer needed his rivalry with the lazy, undisciplined, but fiercely talented Lennon in order to make contact with his own darker and scarier emotions. Now McCartney is alone on stage, left to carry the weight of his baby boomer fan base until the day that he dies. Which all goes to prove that Ringo was the smart one. Comments?  |
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Nov 17, 2003 21:17:04 GMT
[glow=red,2,300]OUCH!![/glow]
|
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Nov 18, 2003 0:19:55 GMT
What McCartney is selling here is the idea that baby boomers don't have to be afraid of death. No need to be afraid of death; unless yer afraid some butthead jerk will take yer place after you die, & put yer name on a bunch of mediocre crap.! Excellent review! Thanks for posting that. Too bad the author doesn't have a clue as to the WHYS of the matter. Faul NEVER had the Rock&Roll in him. He was just able to fake it once in a while. |
|
|
|
Post by gm1276 on Nov 18, 2003 2:15:11 GMT
That is possibly the worst f**king review I've ever read in my life. Back in the US is actually enjoyable, but this dipshit makes it sound bad. It's a GOOD ALBUM, people! Even if Faul exists, HE f**kING ROCKS!!! OK? Just give up your pathetic whining about how evil he is and he's a bad songwriter and musician and blah blah blah. It's crap. If Faul is real, he's as good of a musician as Paul ever was, and this album is evidence of it. Do you realize that if your theory is correct, he's 70!! years old?  |
|
|
|
Post by beldabeast on Nov 18, 2003 2:24:18 GMT
>>. Do you realize that if your theory is correct, he's 70!! years old? <<< And looks it |
|
|
|
Post by gm1276 on Nov 18, 2003 3:37:57 GMT
>>. Do you realize that if your theory is correct, he's 70!! years old? <<< And looks it Well, yeah, he looks late 60's but not 70's. And what I mean is, how many 70 years can do what he does ? Think about it. |
|
|
|
Post by TheWatusi on Nov 18, 2003 3:39:48 GMT
i dont know, gm....i definately would not rule being in his seventies out...
|
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Nov 18, 2003 4:36:50 GMT
That is possibly the worst f*cking review I've ever read in my life. Back in the US is actually enjoyable, but this dipsh*t makes it sound bad. It's a GOOD ALBUM, people! Even if Faul exists, HE f*ckING ROCKS!!! OK? Just give up your pathetic whining about how evil he is and he's a bad songwriter and musician and blah blah blah. It's crap. If Faul is real, he's as good of a musician as Paul ever was, and this album is evidence of it. Do you realize that if your theory is correct, he's 70!! years old? I've said it before & I'll say it again.... I saw Faul 10yrs ago & it was a damn good concert. I was under the illusion that I was seeing PAUL With the momentum of that massive illusion & the good band & Faul's abilities, it was an excellent concert. But he's aged a LOT in the last 10yrs & I'm sure those lounge-singer leanings are just that much stronger. Faul isn't the one doing all the rockin', that's the band he hired to rock.... plus he's using somebody elses art as a prop. |
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Nov 18, 2003 7:25:09 GMT
That was a pretty viciously worded review............
Paul was sure never like Ozzy-----------I guess the sentimentality isn't for everyone. And rock is not supposed to be a sentimental medium, I guess.
But I want to buy the album to see for myself.
Can a fan be reviewed for finding something good in an album that got a pan like this?
Let's suggest he work up a speed metal version of "Yesterday."
I guess I get the old fogey---square-----grandma award today. but, what's wrong with a little schmaltz sometimes? Schmaltz means "chicken fat" in Yiddish, does it not? Sometimes a little chicken soup (with the fat) is good for you. ("Eat something, you're wasting away!..................")
All this to say that Bill's music has a place--and a lot of it is good. JMO
|
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Nov 18, 2003 12:19:34 GMT
....Bill's music has a place--and a lot of it is good. JMO I saw him in concert in the early 90's, and truly enjoyed the show. I also think the DVD of "Back in the US" is terrific, have seen it several times. I like a lot of his music....I just no longer think he is James Paul. |
|
|
|
Post by Fwings on Nov 19, 2003 5:06:15 GMT
I still love Faul's music from The Beatles and Wings. Now that I know he's not the original McCarteny, it doesn't take away my enjoyment from his work. In fact, as hinted by my name and avatar, I believe the name "Paul McCarteny and Wings" was a tribute to the real Paul, because indeed, James Paul has his wings.
|
|
|
|
Post by MotherNaureSon on Nov 19, 2003 8:20:50 GMT
The "Back in the world" album is really pleasant and enjoyable.
|
|
|
|
Post by yellowmatter on Nov 19, 2003 9:48:14 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Dec 1, 2003 0:27:17 GMT
The review was one of the best I've read concerning the unhidden mediocrity that we know of as Faul Sheppard.
Faul is a pathetic, pompous, self-important sham that does not deserve the misguided and naive adulation which he must coax from audiences to feed his massive, pretentious ego.
Faul and the vast majority of his solo work has been a muffled, barely hidden running joke in the entertainment industry for decades. All show and no substance, for lack of more derogatory descriptives.
He's probably the type of 'personality' who gets pissed off when commoners DON"T make a fuss and beg for photos and autographs. An empty shell of a human being who exists only within the context of fan idolization.
Musically, Faul should have quietly retired over 20 years ago. He is as bland as toast. On a personal level, I have nothing but contempt for FAUL.
|
|
|
|
Post by JamesPaul & Brian on Dec 1, 2003 0:34:13 GMT
Well done, Ian!  |
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Dec 1, 2003 0:55:40 GMT
Well done, Ian! Thanks, JP. I appreciate that. I do not, by any means, expect every person here to embrace me or my opinions. I also do not expect others to agree with me, and I respect that. I will, and do, always tell it the way I see it. |
|
Danthology
Contributor
"For awhile we can sit, smoke a pipe and discuss all the vast intricacies of life..."
Posts: 47
|
Post by Danthology on Dec 1, 2003 12:55:50 GMT
Musically, Faul should have quietly retired over 20 years ago. He is as bland as toast. On a personal level, I have nothing but contempt for FAUL. So bitter! P(f)aul has had a few bad records I agree, but in my opinion, his best solo albums have been his last two. Whether he is JP or not, he helped the Beatles complete their career, recorded great songs such as Let It Be and Hey Jude (One of the most famous songs ever recorded by The Beatles), and - in the multiple albums released after the breakup, several were good. So, don't be so hard on the man - if he is not JP, he did a tremendous job and held up the name as best as anyone could in that situation - and if he is JP - congratulations on the most sucessful musical career of all time. |
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Dec 2, 2003 1:16:33 GMT
So bitter! P(f)aul has had a few bad records I agree, but in my opinion, his best solo albums have been his last two. Whether he is JP or not, he helped the Beatles complete their career, recorded great songs such as Let It Be and Hey Jude (One of the most famous songs ever recorded by The Beatles), and - in the multiple albums released after the breakup, several were good. So, don't be so hard on the man - if he is not JP, he did a tremendous job and held up the name as best as anyone could in that situation - and if he is JP - congratulations on the most sucessful musical career of all time.  By all means, you are entitled to your opinion. I have stated mine with conviction. You see, I am old enough to remember The Beatles WHEN THEY WERE HAPPENING, and perhaps that creates more of an intense reaction to a damn imposter who, in 2003, is inconsequential and not even relevent. A pathetic fossil. I also demand quite a bit more musically and intellectually from my musical idols than FAUL could ever deliver. I do not spend my hard-earned money on pretentious banal wanking with idiotic, redundant lyrics. So, there is where we differ! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Dec 2, 2003 1:19:33 GMT
Also, as an addendum, the professional music critic seemed to quite agree with my assessment and opinions of Faul in general..therefore, I am not by far the minority in this train of thought. FAUL is a pathetic cliche of the lowest order. |
|
By all means, you are entitled to your opinion. I have stated mine with conviction. You see, I am old enough to remember The Beatles WHEN THEY WERE HAPPENING, and perhaps that creates more of an intense reaction to a damn imposter who, in 2003, is inconsequential and not even relevent. A pathetic fossil.