Bing Search

Music News

©MPL Communications Ltd. / Paul McCartney
© MPL Communications Ltd. / Paul McCartney
Fight Club: Paul McCartney

Dueling scribes square off over a rock legend who's gone from heartthrob to knighthood

By Mark Brown and Michael Shilling
Special to MSN Music

Two frequent MSN Music contributors ponder Macca's latest project in this installment of our ongoing series of critical debates.

Paul McCartney's new album, "Kisses on the Bottom," released on Feb. 7 -- but what kind of sound did it make when it hit the ground? Is the album of mostly standards from Sir Paul's childhood a loving tribute to song craftsmanship or his most self-indulgent move since "Give My Regards to Broad Street"? Furthermore, what does it say about the state of his creativity these days? We try to get to the bottom of "Bottom."

Michael Shilling: I always feel bad going after Sir Paul, because he's a genius. Was a genius, I mean. So when does past genius become irrelevant to present mediocrity? In Macca's case, probably a long time ago, like sometime between "Pipes of Peace" and "Press to Play." But still, this new record of Valentine's Day-esque love songs ... why, dude, why? If I had just woken up or was about to go to sleep and heard the record, I'd think it was Sting's latest. Or Elvis Costello's. You get the point: There's utterly no sense of McCartney on it. Yeah, he sounds fine for a guy who's gracefully sliding into the septuagenarian, but what's the purpose of covering "It's Only a Paper Moon" like you're singing it at your grandson's confirmation? What's the need for another syrup-drenched version of "The Glory of Love"? What's the point of doing a bit of cheek like "My Very Good Friend the Milkman" with the solemnity of a church hymn? Cover albums should be interpretations, but this record just trod on very old ground.

Mark Brown: I'm not going to lie: Defending "Kisses on the Bottom" is impossible, from the album title to the dreary love-letter tracks. I understand the impulse. He's in love, he's happy, he wants the world to know it. But record it for your new wife, give it to her as a gift, and leave it at that. Save for this misstep, however, Sir Paul's track record in the past few years has been impeccable. The shows are better than ever, with deep tracks like "I've Just Seen a Face," "Nineteen Hundred and Eighty Five" and even "Come and Get It" (wow!) peppering the set of usual classics. His shows rival Springsteen for length, depth and pure pleasure. But his songwriting is also strong, approaching genius. "That Was Me" from 2007 was a cheeky career review that was not only fun, but reminded you "Oh yeah, he did do all that, didn't he?" In 2008, I ignored his latest experimental "Electric Arguments" (McCartney's project with producer Youth, the Fireman), then had to go back and buy it after hearing the sublime "Sing the Changes" in concert. Like Dylan, there can be dry spells and long lulls -- but he's not done, not by a long shot.

More: McCartney's Big Grammy Night

Michael Shilling: Cheeky. That's an interesting word. Like, at nearly 70, what's the point of cheeky? My problem with the music that you mention is not that it's particularly terrible. Some of it has nice melodies, a sweet turn of phrase, a pleasing sense of retrospection. My issues go back to pretty much the 1970s, and the magical disappearance of the brilliant guy who was instrumental in changing the pop world. So maybe we should go deeper, instead of splitting hairs on whether or not "Nod Your Head" is the worst single of the 2000s, and try to figure out where Paul went. With few exceptions, every time I hear Sir Paul sing I think, "Where the rest of me?" and "There's no there there." I've never seen such a musical hiding-in-plain-sight as Macca. I don't buy the whole "John and Paul's competition kept them brilliant" frame, because it insults both of them. No one who writes "In My Life" or "Maybe I'm Amazed" did so because of peer pressure. He was the charming Beatle ... now he's the vacant ex-Beatle. I'm asking questions instead of making declarations because it's such a mystery, and no occasional pop gem can obscure it.

Mark Brown: Cheeky beats cranky in my book (I'm looking at you, Lou Reed). If anything, yes men diminished McCartney's '80s creativity the same way they killed Michael Jackson. The cliché is true, however: Many say his best work came when he had collaborators to push him (John Lennon, Elvis Costello and more recently Nigel Godrich, who started McCartney's post-millennium rebirth with "Chaos and Creation in the Backyard"). Last time I interviewed Paul, I asked him, "Is the cliché true? Do you need to be pushed?" And he simply agreed that, yes, it certainly helped.

More: McCartney relieved the Beatles never reunited

Michael Shilling: Yes, of course artists need other artists they respect to push them on, but therein lies the mystery of Sir Paul. Someone as brilliant as him may do better work with worthy collaborators, especially when those collaborators are at the top of their game like "The Girl Is Mine," which pretty much rides on M.J. in his prime. Still, it doesn't add up that his work would fall off so completely when it's just him and his crack team of session monsters. It's like he retreats into one version or another of "Silly Love Songs." He can still bring it live, which further compounds the mystery. Still, tell me how you would pitch McCartney's last studio record to the young 'uns. What would you say to demonstrate his sense of relevance? Because if he's a nostalgia act, he's failed.

Mark Brown: The song I mentioned, "That Was Me," was on his last studio album and is the perfect mix of nostalgia, bravado and relevance. He lists his career highlights and throws down the challenge in the chorus: "Yeah, that was me -- the same me who stands here now." To me, that's as much bravado as anything Eminem or Kanye are throwing down, and McCartney can back up the boast. There are plenty of jukebox nostalgia acts trotting out the old hits; McCartney keeps plugging, keeps writing and occasionally blasts one into the bleachers. And if the nostalgia he has to fall back on ranges from "Eleanor Rigby" to "Junior's Farm" to the inevitable "Hey Jude" encore, that's a pretty cushy landing.

Michael Shilling: Yeah, that's a good one for sure and reminds me, however slightly, of his brilliance, wit and craft. Which makes "Kisses on the Bottom" that much more an inexcusable bit of dumbing down. Funny: Though it might just be the similar rhythm, "That Was Me" seems like the bright analogue to John's bitter draught about stardom and self-involvement, "Serve Yourself." Ah, the Lennon-McCartney dialectic knows no end!

Mark Brown is a veteran music journalist who was pop critic for The Rocky Mountain News until its demise. He is also a contributor to MSN's Reverb blog.

Michael Shilling is a recovering rock musician and the author of "Rock Bottom," a novel. He lives in Seattle, where he is a teacher, writer and editor.

Keep up with MSN Music: Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

5Comments
Feb 24, 2012 2:33AM
avatar
40 years from now - will you be listening to music by Kanye or Eminem??  
Feb 23, 2012 4:51PM
avatar
Paul McCartney and John Lennon changed popular music. Their musicianship and creativity challenged every other musician at the time and into the future. Have you ever tried to play the chords McCartney dreamed up? A person cannot keep up that sort of creative energy forever, but to say that he is passe is ridiculous. I am always interested in what Sir Paul has to write about. My only criticism is that if he would choose a woman more his age he might not dwell on the creativity of his past youth.He might come up with some richer, clever, fuller, "experienced" songs. Bob Dylan, my other favorite, has done this with great aplomb. 
Feb 23, 2012 4:31AM
avatar
This old clown needs to go away already. 
Feb 22, 2012 7:23PM
avatar

I love this man, music would not be anything with out him.

No, he hasnt written every song or composition ever written but you say his name and or the Beatles the word music and greatness comes to mind.

But you know hes done classical a bit of hard rock in his time with the Beatles.

Dispite his songs as solo artist that I dont like you cant dispute he's given enough while a Beatle and during his early Wings separation from the Beatles.

I will be listening to this new one.

Feb 17, 2012 5:00PM
avatar
what great insight from both of you.  I consider myself a big McCartney fan and consider BOTTOM unlistenable.  If I want to hear these covers, I'll listen to Linda Ronstadt or Rod Stewarts much more inspired versions.  McCartney sounds as board as any listener of the collection would be.  ALthough he can still belt out a pretty good pop tune EVER PRESENT PAST, I believe his last full listenable CD was Flaming Pie.  And, like mentioned above, he worked with JEFF LYNNE and STEVE MILLER on that CD to give it the creative push it needed.  And one last comment, at 70, I believe Paul's best vocal days are in his ever present PAST.
Report
Please help us to maintain a healthy and vibrant community by reporting any illegal or inappropriate behavior. If you believe a message violates theCode of Conductplease use this form to notify the moderators. They will investigate your report and take appropriate action. If necessary, they report all illegal activity to the proper authorities.
Categories
100 character limit
Are you sure you want to delete this comment?
more on msn music
Miranda Lambert/Pharrell Williams/Janelle Monae
See highlights from this summers' biggest current tours and festivals
Ed Sheeran: From touring with Taylor to a single with Pharrell, British troubadour navigates to pop's mainstream
Most memorable BET moments: Check out six highlights from the 2014 awards' nearly four hour event
Courtney on Kurt: His widow and Hole front woman reveals Cobain was "desperate" to achieve rock stardom
Prince reigns: The funk-rock-pop wizard reveals another full-length set ready to roll out for fans