Comparative Observation

[mervap]

As I said in another thread, I have been re-visiting "Venus & Mars" after not having listened to it in several months...as usual with Paul's solo career, I discovered something different this time around. When listened to back to back, "Venus" sounds as if it should have followed "RRS"...it sounds strange to say that, but I'm doing just that and I hear similarities, a continuity if you will, between them. One must set aside the difference in production values to hear this...to my ears, "RRS" sounds better by far in that catagory. No, I'm speaking of the type of songs to be found on each of them. Most of us have observed that Paul, for better or worse, likes to dabble in whimsy and pastiche, which has been mistaken for insubstantiality by his detractors...both of these albums have this trait in common, tunes that you love and can't get out of your head, but wonder why!

I wonder what came over Paul during the "Band On the Run" era that allowed him to create something more "meaty" from these same ingredients, while "Venus & Mars" and "RRS" are generally seen as inferior to that work...just a thought. Anyone else hear this?

[Paperback Writer]

Brilliant observation!

Probably inspired to compete with John during BOTR, I picture him auditioning his songs to John, as if they were still in the Beatles on BOTR, working it hard, editing is stuff and selling it to Johnny Rhythym.

Whereas, on RRS and V+M - famously Macca-coasting and noodling around, looking for an AM hit or two.   Slap those 2 CD's into one 12-14 song album, add some muscle and it would have been great.

[Kylenz]

Yeah excellent observation, notice though on all 3 of those albums, he dabbles in an Abbey Road-type medley on side two. I mean that loosely. On RRS, there's Hold Me Tight/Lazy Dynamite/Hands of Love/Power Cut. On BOTR, we have the Picasso's Last Words (a combination of ideas in itself) which flows into the "ho hey ho" reprise of Mrs Vanderbilt, and then it fades out, followed by the opening bars of 1985, which itself soars into a finale.

Then fast-forward to Venus and Mars.. at the end of Listen to What the Man Said, there's a lush instrumental section at the end which dovetails into Treat Her Gently and Lonely Old People (another instance of 2 songs squished together to form 1), and concludes with the Crossroads Theme; again, forming a big long medley of sorts, at the end.

I wonder if that was Paul subconsciously keeping with an 'Abbey Road'-type formula in a "that was a good idea" kind-of way? He does it again, of course, on Back To The Egg (not so much on London Town, where all the songs on side 2 are pretty much self-contained). The only other album since then, which attempts a similar thing, would probably be Memory Almost Full!

[2 of 3]

Hmmm...a lot of ideas without any other input like the old days maybe?

[acebackwords]

Paul, for better or worse, likes to dabble in whimsy and pastiche, which has been mistaken for insubstantiality by his detractors...

Very well put.  The medley on Redrose Speedway might seem a little light, but you know, I haven't listened to that album in 30 years but I can still remember the melodies so there must have been SOMETHING substantial about them.  Course I heard even Macca himself complaining that the mistake he made on that album was he didn't take the time to finish the songs.  Course, you can't win. If you labor over them they say its "slick and over-produced." If you do it off the top of your head its "under-developed."

McCartney has to be one of the most tuneful songwriters of all time (stop the presses, huh). I even read an interview with Dylan recently where he's raving in amazement at all the melodies Macca comes up with.

[mervap]

Hmmm...a lot of ideas without any other input like the old days maybe?

That's way more valid than you might think, Two....consider this: Abbey Road was the first Beatles LP to feature a true medley. It's well known that by this time, the Lads weren't really collaborating on the scale they did in their early days. Back then, JL and Macca would have gotten together and either helped to finish off each other's songs, or mashed them together to create ONE song. By the time Abbey Road came around, they did have several 'songlets' lying about...nobody felt like getting together to finish them, so maybe Paul has this medley idea to clean things up a bit and ends up creating what may be the finest slab of melodic rock the world will ever see.

I wonder if that was Paul subconsciously keeping with an 'Abbey Road'-type formula in a "that was a good idea" kind-of way?

Spot on, Kyle, I've often wondered that myself...maybe even not subconsciously! :)

[Greg]

Wow.  This post of yours really has me thinking. 

I really like Venus and RRS although I just don't like the production on Venus.  I think Band on the Run's songs fit together better than some of the disjointed tunes on RRS and Venus.  I can see how someone wouldn't agree with that of course.

It's hard to see how Band on the Run came about.  It seems like it should have followed Ram to me.  But anyway, why did Band on the Run sound like it did? ...as you said.  Three people on it as opposed to five on the others?  Geoff Emerick's involvement?  (doubtful)  Maybe he realized he couldn't write another RRS, so he tried to write something different but then went back to the the Venus type of album after diverting from it on Band on the Run.  Location?  I wonder what Paul's take on your post would be?

[mervap]

I'll ask him next time he comes over!

I think there are really 3 main reasons it sounds different: It was recorded (mostly) in a different studio than his other solo works, Geoff Emerick was the engineer and, being in Lagos, Paul was outside his relative "comfort zone". There's also some merit to your suggestion about only three primary musicians. Having less band members allowed more of Macca's original 'vision' to be more fully realized...anyone who's ever written a song and then presented it to the rest of the band, only to have them fold and spindle it can attest to that truth!