Irrelevant, characterless reworkings of some of his best songs,
alongside dreadfully weak new material...WHY?
I think it was a good idea at the time, for Paul to try new things and spread his wings, to work on the film. I watched the South Bank Show documentary many years ago and there was no doubting his energy and committment towards the project. I think there was also a lot of deifying of John going on at the time and Paul wanted to step out and show the world that
'hey, my music in The Beatles mattered too.. don't forget about me' kind of thing. So part of it was to prove himself, showcase his best songs, take the risk of reinterpretation here and there.
I wonder how you could describe 'No More Lonely Nights' as weak new material. I think it was one of the best ballads of the 80s, right up there with Take My Breath Away by Berlin, You Are So Beautiful by Joe Cocker, name any 'torch rock ballad' and it's right up there. It was a huge hit too. The great solo by Dave Gilmour, there's so much to like about it. The other new songs were straight ahead rock songs - true - nothing special - but strong nonetheless. I think of Not Such A Bad Boy as one of those songs that would go down well in a bar and everyone's drinking and having a good time, it would make a good live song, same goes for No Values - good barroom rock. Maybe it's just a taste thing. Over here in New Zealand in the early 80s there were many bands who were quite popular for making a similar kind of music - Hello Sailor and Th' Dudes. Here's Hello Sailor's biggest hit 'Blue Lady' -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O93EzrqZ6DY - very similar in sound to Not Such a Bad Boy - was a popular genre in rock at the time. Australia also had its share of 'bar rock' successes like Australian Crawl (The Boys Light Up).
I think the album works well for its place and time. It's not pretending to be a Band on the Run or an Abbey Road, it is what it is!
