|
Paul McCartney - Memory Almost Full
Hear Music
Well, this is it kiddies. I am damned if I do like this
album and damned if I don't like this album. Am I a crazy loon
who can't tell one of my idols' talent has faded with age? Am I
supposed to hate the album because it's cool to take the piss
out of a billionaire's vanity musical project because he's out
of touch? If I like it am I out of touch myself? If I hate it do
I suffer the slings and arrows of the McCartney faithful who
would love the album even if it was filled with nothing but the
sound of McCartney farting into a mircrophone? Should I love
this album just because it is the work of a former Beatle?
Should I hate it just because it is the work of a former Beatle?
Is Paul McCartney dancing with a ukelele in a commercial
supposed to make him cool now or does it prove he's a crazy old
man who should just stick to counting his money?
Decisions, decisions.
The buzz surrounding this album is about way more than
just the music itself. It's got a lot to do with the fact that
this is his first album away from a strict alliance with a major
label. Though Starbucks (owners of his new label, in case you've
been living under a rock) is a huge corporation and the album is
being distributed by Concord Records and also Universal by
association, the feeling is different. Certainly the promotion
has been different, with in-stores, secret gigs and street teams
working the hell of out of this album in a way no McCartney
album has been worked in maybe twenty years. All in the name of
making this album succeed so it can be seen as a blow to the
major label system. That's the hook, business-wise. Musically,
it's being touted like it is this year's version of Bob Dylan's
Modern Times which is to say like a return to form by a rock and
roll legend. Whether it actually is a return to form or not I'll
get to a little later. More important is the fallout McCartney
is experiencing from all of the hype, which matches the sturm
und drang Modern Times begat.
So, McCartney pretty much finds himself in the same
place as Dylan. Every time Dylan releases an album, people start
getting their hackles up and begin to get polarized about it.
Most times even before they hear the album. Then it's the rush
to judgment. Does it compare to past work? Does it make a
statement? Should it make a statement? Is it just a collection
of songs? Why is it just a collection of songs? It gets
ridiculous. I wrote a best-of-the-year review for this website
praising the last Dylan album as one of the best albums released
last year and one of the best albums Dylan's done. I stand by my
assessment even though a lot of people shot the album down
because, in their opinion, it wasn't as good as Blonde On Blonde
or something of the equivalent. My feeling has always been that
great albums are of a time and a place. If Blonde On Blonde came
out today, I don't even think it would register on anyone's
radar. I daresay Dylan would sound silly if he presented those
songs as new today. Could you imagine how weird it would be for
someone past middle age to try to sing the same songs as if he
were in his '20's? Does that mean Blonde On Blonde sucks now? Of
course not. What it means is that music always changes and the
zeitgeist always changes as well. Blonde On Blonde works as a
statement of a young man in the late '60's. It wouldn't work
today. Dylan's last album Modern Times works as a statement of
an older artist in this time. In fact, I feel it is one of the
best statements Dylan's made. But he couldn't have made it
before. And it can't really compare to his '60's work. The
climate is different, the man is different. Modern Times stands
on its' own as a product of a new millenium and stands quite
well but people always seem to want the same young Dylan who
busted on the folk scene in the early '60's.
Similarly, everyone wants McCartney to sound as if he
just stepped off the plane in New York City with the rest of the
Beatles on their way to the Ed Sullivan show. It can't happen.
He has aged for the better and the worse. One can only hope that
as an artist ages, his wisdom, insight and stealth pick up the
slack from the disappearing energy and intensity. Sadly, real
life only too often shows us the folly of those hopes. Most of
the time, the reality is to struggle and fight and hope you get
just a glimmer of the past to roll your way, if only to have it
be the exception that proves the rule. Like Dylan, however, when
McCartney does manage to get his muse firing the results can be
pretty spectacular, if much too infrequent as his voluminous
back catalog would attest.
It's common knowledge among his fans McCartney has had
either three or four albums since leaving the Beatles that are
pretty much accepted as top-notch classics. While that's roughly
only one classic album per decade, four classic albums are four
more than most artists can muster. McCartney's acknowledged
classic albums are Ram, Band On The Run, Tug Of War, and Flowers
In The Dirt. Ram is cited by some die-hard McCartney fans
because it was the first solo album from the former Beatle and
because he plays all the instruments himself. I personally side
with those who don't believe it was one of his best. Usually the
next cited (or first, as it usually is picked as McCartney's
first great post-Beatles album by most McCartney lovers who tend
to ignore Ram) is Band On The Run which McCartney made while
fronting the band Wings. Even though Wings was definitely a band
(Wings guitarist and former Moody Blues bandmember Denny Laine
often co-wrote songs with McCartney) most people only think of
McCartney when they think of the group. This brings us to the
next classic McCartney album, Tug Of War. Recorded in the early
'80's, it featured a still-young McCartney coming to grips with
the demise of Wings and focusing on trying to make credible pop
music in a post-punk musical climate. To his credit, he
succeeded mightily. McCartney's next great album came at the end
of the '80's, at a time when most figured McCartney was washed
up, even though the album was released only six years after Tug
Of War. Maybe it was because every album released after Tug Of
War was filled with horrible dreck. Whatever the reason, Flowers
In The Dirt was a great album. Possibly his last great one, for
that matter. It was heralded as a return to form for McCartney,
who managed to corral the John Lennon-like (at least in mood)
Elvis Costello in to help co-write a couple of songs. It is not
surprising most fans feel the songs McCartney wrote with
Costello were the best songs on the album. The same holds true
for Costello's own album from about the same time Spike. Also
featuring several songs written by the pair, Spike is generally
considered the best all-around album for Costello and became
Costello's best-selling disc to date, giving more credence to
how good those co-written songs actually are. Since Flowers
McCartney fans have been waiting in vain for another classic
album. While there have been at least a couple of songs on each
of his subsequent albums that are comparable to McCartney's best
work, the whole package hasn't been delivered. But then, who
from those halcyon days has been able to deliver a complete
package? And should it matter?
These latter-day Dylan albums, Stones albums, McCartney
albums - they're just albums of songs to most people. To me,
they are late-inning salvos from artists I have spent my life
listening to and watching. Most of the crowd has left and only
the die-hards remain. So be it. I don't know a world without
Paul McCartney in it. I don't know a world without his music.
Same for the Stones, same for Dylan, same for lots of older
artists. Does that mean I don't appreciate newer sounds from
newer artists? No. I love finding something something incredible
from someone who I've never heard of before, that's why I write
about music and why I listen to it. To find something new that
blows you away. But why is it people get so up in arms about
something new coming from somebody a little bit older? It's
probably got much to do with how we see our contributions to the
world as we grow older. We see our own mortality in these
artists. When they seem as if their screwing up, it makes us
bitter and angry. And when they do a slightly better than
passable job, we want to sing to the heavens that there's still
a chance the world can be changed. But make no mistake: I am not
going to give credit where it isn't due and I will not give
someone a pass because of their legend. On the other hand, I
won't shoot someone down because they have gray hairs and are
past their fortieth birthday. To do either would be folly.
Make no mistake, this is not the best solo album
McCartney's ever made. It's just not. I refuse to say the reason
is because he's lost it or can't do it anymore because not only
do I not want to say that about a person who has written more
great songs than anyone, but I just don't want to because I
don't know. Like Johnny Unitas or Michael Jordan at the ends of
their careers, you see the cracks growing bigger but you see
enough flashes of the old to make you hope they can do it just a
couple more times. McCartney has the skills, but can he control
them and use them whenever he wants? That's the question.
Now, the verdict: I feel that Memory Almost Full is a
good album. It doesn't rank up there with his best, but it's
certainly worth the money, which is more than I can say for a
lot of what gets released these days. Considering McCartney has
been on a pretty decent roll lately, whether it started with Run
Devil Run or Flaming Pie notwithstanding, this album is yet
another in a recent spate of albums which have been close enough
to greatness to make you think the next one will be the complete
deal. That those follow-up albums continue to NOT be the
complete deal kind of gnaws at me but if albums like this are
the best we can get out of McCartney, I will take it. Lyrically,
the man continues to flail, his rhymes just this side of clichés
except for certain songs where his instincts still prove
formidable. Am I fool for still expecting a choice couplet?
Maybe. After all, this is a man that came up with the insipid
"Ebony and Ivory" when given a chance to comment on our society
almost thirty years ago. So, I guess I shouldn't expect biting
lyrics. Musically, however, McCartney still shines like a
diamond way more often than not. Even if I can't remember the
words to these songs, I find myself humming the tunes long after
the album has been cut off, which is a sign of a very good
album. I like the first single ("My Ever Present Past") the best
with "Mr. Bellamy" following close behind but there are several
tunes on this CD I enjoy playing over and over again. The
musicianship is top-notch as well, with McCartney's latest band
standing head and shoulders above the others he's used,
including Wings.
People who would like this are legion. Not only is this
is a solid, above average album on its' own right, you have tons
of Beatle fans who are going to want to listen to this, and
rightly so as it's well worth their money. Then, you have those
who just like solidly made pop music. They're going to be happy
as well, because even though McCartney's work is not up to
Beatle status, very few artists' work meet that criteria. Don't
go into this expecting a milestone. Check out this album because
it's a good album made by an artist who knows how to make good
albums. - Scott Homewood
www.hearmusic.com
|
