# What do you think about Paul McCartney's classical work?



## PresenTense (May 7, 2016)

Is it bad? Is it more or less? Does it have something worth the listening? What do you think about it? 
Some people say he should stay in pop world haha.


----------



## acitak 7 (Jun 26, 2016)

*paul mccartney oratorio*

I am a big Paul McCartney fan,ie Beatles and Wings. I started to listen to his Oratorio recently but gave up after 5 minutes not for me. Stick with your back catalogue Paul.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

That Oratorio is utter rubbish, kitsch from the highest order.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I've heard only a little of McCartney's orchestral music (the videos above wouldn't play), but as to the allegations he should stay in the pop world, I'd say he never left it. Nothing wrong with that.

A more "classical" effort in my opinion is Keith Emerson's piano concerto. The themes are extraordinary and not very pop, only in the sense that Copland is pop.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

Worst embarrassment by a major artist since late Wordsworth.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

And it's not because he's lost his talent, per se. His late pop music is quite good, if not necessarily great, if you don't mind the fact that he can't sing any more.


----------



## QuietGuy (Mar 1, 2014)

The oratorio is not good.
Standing Stone is not good until the last part of the last movement ("Celebration").
The best part of Ecce Cor Meum is the "Gratia", and even then, there's too much repetition.

His best classical pieces are A Leaf, and Spiral, and even these need work.

He needs to stick to pop.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Like Andrew Lloyd Webber, McCartney should stick to what he's good at - writing songs.


----------



## acitak 7 (Jun 26, 2016)

your quite right his voice is shot,but as a younger artist with the Beatles and Wings I think his voice was very distinctive.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

This is horrible..._horrible._


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

McCartney's attempts at classical music reminds me of the wisdom of Clint Eastwood's Dirty Harry: _'A man's got to know his limitations'._

IMO, that goes for a lot of McCartney's pop music after the Beatle' era (post 1970). Take a look at a list of McCartney's songs during that period: almost 99% total mediocrity. Where were the songs anywhere near in the category of Yesterday, Let It Be and Across the Universe, not to mention the many other songs co-written with Lennon? IMO, the only song he wrote after Abbey Road (the actual final Beatles album) that came close was Maybe I'm Amazed.

Yes, I listened to a number of his Wings albums during those post Beatles years, but, seriously, songs like Jet, Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey, Band on the Run? Maybe he did come close to the simple beautiful ballads of the Beatles period with 'My Love', but after that, it was all down hill. And, as others have pointed out: He really should, once and for all, leave the stage.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

DaveM said:


> McCartney's attempts at classical music reminds me of the wisdom of Clint Eastwood's Dirty Harry: _'A man's got to know his limitations'._
> 
> IMO, that goes for a lot of McCartney's pop music after the Beatle' era (post 1970). Take a look at a list of McCartney's songs during that period: almost 99% total mediocrity. Where were the songs anywhere near in the category of Yesterday, Let It Be and Across the Universe, not to mention the many other songs co-written with Lennon? IMO, the only song he wrote after Abbey Road (the actual final Beatles album) that came close was Maybe I'm Amazed.
> 
> Yes, I listened to a number of his Wings albums during those post Beatles years, but, seriously, songs like Jet, Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey, Band on the Run? Maybe he did come close to the simple beautiful ballads of the Beatles period with 'My Love', but after that, it was all down hill. And, as others have pointed out: He really should, once and for all, leave the stage.


As long as there's money in it he'll keep at it. Vote with your dollars, people.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

DaveM said:


> Where were the songs anywhere near in the category of Yesterday, Let It Be and Across the Universe, not to mention the many other songs co-written with Lennon?


Yesterday and Let It Be are entirely by McCartney. Across the Universe is entirely by Lennon.



DaveM said:


> IMO, the only song he wrote after Abbey Road (the actual final Beatles album) that came close was Maybe I'm Amazed.
> 
> Yes, I listened to a number of his Wings albums during those post Beatles years, but, seriously, songs like Jet, Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey, Band on the Run?


There is indeed a great difference between the Abbey Road medley and Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey: one of them comes in a record sleeve that says "Beatles" and the other doesn't.

And all three of those songs are better than Yesterday.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

DaveM said:


> McCartney's attempts at classical music reminds me of the wisdom of Clint Eastwood's Dirty Harry: _'A man's got to know his limitations'._
> 
> IMO, that goes for a lot of McCartney's pop music after the Beatle' era (post 1970). Take a look at a list of McCartney's songs during that period: almost 99% total mediocrity. Where were the songs anywhere near in the category of Yesterday, Let It Be and Across the Universe, not to mention the many other songs co-written with Lennon? IMO, the only song he wrote after Abbey Road (the actual final Beatles album) that came close was Maybe I'm Amazed.
> 
> Yes, I listened to a number of his Wings albums during those post Beatles years, but, seriously, songs like Jet, Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey, Band on the Run? Maybe he did come close to the simple beautiful ballads of the Beatles period with 'My Love', but after that, it was all down hill. And, as others have pointed out: He really should, once and for all, leave the stage.


I think _Ram_ is excellent, about as good as some of The Beatles' finest work.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Hildadam Bingor said:


> Yesterday and Let It Be are entirely by McCartney. Across the Universe is entirely by Lennon.


You're right and I actually knew that. That was supposed to be The Long and Winding Road.



> There is indeed a great difference between the Abbey Road medley and Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey: one of them comes in a record sleeve that says "Beatles" and the other doesn't. And all three of those songs are better than Yesterday.


IMO the Abbey Road Medley which McCartney supported while Lennon had to be dragged to the table is/was one of the greatest moments in all of pop music history.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Having heard some of his classical efforts years ago, I can't remember a thing about them except that they occasionally sounded pretty and that I wasn't interested in hearing any more. I believe that lack of interest will be permanent.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

DaveM said:


> IMO the Abbey Road Medley which McCartney supported while Lennon had to be dragged to the table is/was one of the greatest moments in all of pop music history.


I agree with this, and whatever Lennon's initial attitude toward the music was, his presence is still essential. I am one of those who think Macca needed the other Beatles to help keep his sentimentality in check.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

DaveM said:


> You're right and I actually knew that. That was supposed to be The Long and Winding Road.


Not sure what you mean here, but Long and Winding Road is also entirely by McCartney.



> IMO the Abbey Road Medley which McCartney supported while Lennon had to be dragged to the table is/was one of the greatest moments in all of pop music history.


I agree entirely and would leave out the qualifier "pop."

It's a shame that the often-great music written by that genius in the 10+ years after the Beatles broke up remains under appreciated. I mean, I get it - his Captain-&-Tennile-meets-Shining-Time-Station persona that crystallized somewhere in the winter of '69-'70 is insufferable. But if we can give Wagner a pass for being a proto-Nazi...



GreenMamba said:


> I am one of those who think Macca needed the other Beatles to help keep his sentimentality in check.


I don't think there's a single McCartney song that the other Beatles ever actually objected to on grounds of sentimentality. Like, ever. (Except maybe "Blackbird" and "Let It Be" - Lennon disliked both for some vague reason or other - and everybody thinks those are great.) On the contrary: e.g. Lennon loved "Here, There, and Everywhere." And rightly so. Some of McCartney's most sentimental moments are also some of his greatest.

What Lennon & Harrison hated was stuff like "Honey Pie," which isn't sentimental.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

Proof that he wasn't anything special at "classical" in his prime either:


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

Alex Ross' review of McCartney's Ocean Kingdom: http://www.therestisnoise.com/2011/09/reviews-in-brief.html


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

If McCartney hadn't been a member of The Beatles, no one would be talking about his classical work.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Peter Gutmann wrote an article on Standing Stone and made the observation that "Music is architecture, but there's little sense here of the internal, organic structure that underpins all great music. At the end of the Bach St. Matthew Passion, you know where you've been and that you've arrived somewhere."


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

Hildadam Bingor said:


> Proof that he wasn't anything special at "classical" in his prime either:


Thanks for the link. I'd never heard that before, but it was rather lovely. In fact, I much prefer it to his later "classical" music. Lyrical and fluid, with less self-conscious grandiosity.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> Thanks for the link. I'd never heard that before, but it was rather lovely. In fact, I much prefer it to his later "classical" music. Lyrical and fluid, with less self-conscious grandiosity.


Yeah, I've been re-listening to it since I posted it, and now I feel like I was too harsh. I mean, if this was the only thing he ever did, nobody would care about him, but yes, it's pleasant. Most important difference from the stuff of 24+ years later is maybe, as you say, lack of self-consciousness and grandiosity.


----------



## micro (Jun 18, 2016)

>Paul McCartney
>Classical
You've got to choose one.

Seriously, Paul McCartney is a mediocre lucky musician who made lots of money. He is nothing more than that!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

micro said:


> Seriously, Paul McCartney is a mediocre lucky musician who made lots of money. He is nothing more than that!


A mediocre musician whose best songs remain popular and often heard after 50 years? Sorry, does not compute.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

KenOC said:


> A mediocre musician whose best songs remain popular and often heard after 50 years? Sorry, does not compute.


As if popularity was an indicator of quality.


----------



## MJongo (Aug 6, 2011)

Videos blocked by UMG for me. That said, I don't even like his non-classical music, so I don't think I'm missing anything.


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> Thanks for the link. I'd never heard that before, but it was rather lovely. In fact, I much prefer it to his later "classical" music. Lyrical and fluid, with less self-conscious grandiosity.


Shows that he could do prog rock at that time, which is something a lot of proggers probably doubted.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Hildadam Bingor said:


> Not sure what you mean here, but Long and Winding Road is also entirely by McCartney.


It was probably confusing the way I phrased it. In my original post, this is what I meant to say:

_Take a look at a list of McCartney's songs during that period: almost 99% total mediocrity. Where were the songs anywhere near in the category of Yesterday, Let It Be and The Long and Winding Road_ (NOT Across the Universe)_, not to mention the many other songs co-written with Lennon?_


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Morimur said:


> As if popularity was an indicator of quality.


Perhaps not, but it's certainly an indicator of what people like. And many composers want to write music people like (a strange concept to some, I've observed).


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> If McCartney hadn't been a member of The Beatles, no one would be talking about his classical work.


Amen to this :tiphat:


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

Morimur said:


> As if popularity was an indicator of quality.


It is. Not the only indicator, not an infallible indicator, but then, nothing is. If, of all the things that could possibly have become popular, this particular thing did, that indicates that somebody involved probably did something right.

And LONG-LIVED popularity is considerably more significant.



DaveM said:


> It was probably confusing the way I phrased it. In my original post, this is what I meant to say:
> 
> _Take a look at a list of McCartney's songs during that period: almost 99% total mediocrity. Where were the songs anywhere near in the category of Yesterday, Let It Be and The Long and Winding Road_ (NOT Across the Universe)_, not to mention the many other songs co-written with Lennon?_


Aaaaah, got it! Thanks!


----------



## techniquest (Aug 3, 2012)

I bought the 'Liverpool Oratorio' when it first cam out and was so disappointed. I only listened to it once: empty, pointless garbage. I heard 'Standing Stone' and got much the same impression 
I agree with Weston that something worth listening to is Keith Emerson's Piano Concerto, though even that isn't especially good. 'Pop' and 'Rock' musicians as classical composers can definitely be a problem; Tony Banks (Genesis keyboard player) released an orchestral work 'Seven' some time ago on Naxos and it is almost as empty as the McCartney stuff. Banks's second attempt 'Six Pieces for Orchestra' (also on Naxos) was much lauded by Classic FM, but for me that is definitely not a recommendation.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

In fairness, I'd say the ballads from Liverpool Oratorio - "I Know I Should Be Glad of This," "Do We Live in a World" - are pretty okay; kind of like third-rate Leonard Bernstein.

But, say, the bass line of "My Brave Face," or the chorus of "Hope of Deliverance" - to name songs from the preceding and following pop albums - are worth everything good in the oratorio and then some.


----------



## acitak 7 (Jun 26, 2016)

I think Paul McCartneys foray into classical music was ill judged. It would be like Mozart coming back from the dead, and deciding to write some early Beatles stuff, I think he might struggle.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

acitak 7 said:


> I think Paul McCartneys foray into classical music was ill judged. It would be like Mozart coming back from the dead, and deciding to write some early Beatles stuff, I think he might struggle.


This is doubtless literally true, at least until he got a few years practice. But I'd say The Abduction from the Seraglio is fairly analogous to early Beatles stuff.

On which note, maybe it would have been interesting if, in an alternate universe, instead of turning to classical lite after he finally stopped having pop hits, McCartney had taken a sabbatical in his prime and used it to learn to write like Brian Ferneyhough.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

IMO when McCartney released 'Silly Love Songs' in 1976 he was forecasting the type of music (with a very few exceptions) he was going to create for the rest of his career. The songs were thin on melody, structure and production. I can't think of any artist who fell from such heights into the depths of mediocrity for so long.

Compare that to Bruce Springsteen...


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

DaveM said:


> IMO when McCartney released 'Silly Love Songs' in 1976 he was forecasting the type of music (with a very few exceptions) he was going to create for the rest of his career. The songs were thin on melody, structure and production.


"Silly Love Songs" has a pretty complicated structure as pop songs go - more so than a lot of certified Beatles classics. I have no idea what "thin on production" could mean in this context.



DaveM said:


> I can't think of any artist who fell from such heights into the depths of mediocrity for so long.


How about: literally every modern pop musician (except Paul Simon for some reason) (and maybe Mark E. Smith, if people who are more interested in him than I am can be trusted). Maybe exactly because they're just about all descendants of McCartney, who failed to show them how to grow up. (Maybe because Bob Dylan failed to show him.)



DaveM said:


> Compare that to Bruce Springsteen...


Okay, let's compare that to Bruce Springsteen. Melody? Never wrote an original one in his life. Structure? Never came up with one that doesn't make "Silly Love Songs" look like the first movement of Beethoven 9 by comparison.

And you dissed "Jet" earlier in this thread, but "Born To Run" IS "Jet," except with less distortion.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

From my perspective, Paul totally nosedived after the Beatles split.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Hildadam Bingor said:


> "Silly Love Songs" has a pretty complicated structure as pop songs go - more so than a lot of certified Beatles classics. I have no idea what "thin on production" could mean in this context.


For one thing, in a word, he didn't have George Martin producing. It's interesting to me that one of the few post-Beatles McCartney songs that had the feel of the Beatles-period song production was 'Live and Let Die' which George Martin produced. In addition, IMO many of the McCartney songs were thin on the base line production eg. bass guitar and drums which was surprising to me since McCartney could play both instruments.



> How about: literally every modern pop musician (except Paul Simon for some reason) (and maybe Mark E. Smith, if people who are more interested in him than I am can be trusted). Maybe exactly because they're just about all descendants of McCartney, who failed to show them how to grow up. (Maybe because Bob Dylan failed to show him.)


It's true that many pop/rock artists 'fell from the heights', but very few of them fell from the level of the Beatles' heights.  You've lost me when it comes to Paul Simon. IMO, he never achieved anything comparable to the Simon & Garfunkel period after they split although I will give you that his first four albums were okay. His experiments with African and Brazilian music were, to me, embarrassing.



> Okay, let's compare that to Bruce Springsteen. Melody? Never wrote an original one in his life. Structure? Never came up with one that doesn't make "Silly Love Songs" look like the first movement of Beethoven 9 by comparison.


Okay let's compare that to Bruce Springsteen. No original melody? Here are two, although I could continue on into double digits, but life is too short. These two songs have some of the most beautiful melodies I've heard in pop/rock songs:













> And you dissed "Jet" earlier in this thread, but "Born To Run" IS "Jet," except with less distortion.


Wha-a-a-a-t? No-o-o-o!


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

DaveM said:


> For one thing, in a word, he didn't have George Martin producing.


Red herring.



DaveM said:


> In addition, IMO many of the McCartney songs were thin on the base line production eg. bass guitar and drums which was surprising to me since McCartney could play both instruments.


Well you can certainly hear the bass on "Silly Love Songs."



DaveM said:


> You've lost me when it comes to Paul Simon. IMO, he never achieved anything comparable to the Simon & Garfunkel period after they split although I will give you that his first four albums were okay. His experiments with African and Brazilian music were, to me, embarrassing.


That's your prerogative - I obviously disagree - but the fact is that Simon accomplished something very unusual with Graceland, in making such an immediately and enduringly popular and critically acclaimed album so late in his career.



DaveM said:


> Okay let's compare that to Bruce Springsteen. No original melody? Here are two, although I could continue on into double digits, but life is too short. These two songs have some of the most beautiful melodies I've heard in pop/rock songs:


I regard this as pleading my case.



DaveM said:


> Wha-a-a-a-t? No-o-o-o!


Y-e-e-e-a-h!

Look, I know Alan Partridge says Wings are uncool and Springsteen criticized Bush, but there's the awkward fact that THE MUSIC IS THE SAME - except McCartney did it first, and wrote an actually vocal melody to go along with his sped-up-Phil-Spector instead of just kind of mumbling until the refrain, and changed things up with the solo scratch guitar under "...and Jet..." and the quasi-metal boogie under "ah mater", instead of just riding the same texture through the whole song.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I don't think too much about Sir Paul Mccartney's composed pieces. But he is a great musician of a rock n roll.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

ArtMusic said:


> I don't think too much about Sir Paul Mccartney's composed pieces. But he is a great musician of a rock n roll.


But the question is about his " classical works"


----------



## kanishknishar (Aug 10, 2015)

DaveM said:


> McCartney's attempts at classical music reminds me of the wisdom of Clint Eastwood's Dirty Harry: _'A man's got to know his limitations'._
> 
> IMO, that goes for a lot of McCartney's pop music after the Beatle' era (post 1970). Take a look at a list of McCartney's songs during that period: almost 99% total mediocrity. Where were the songs anywhere near in the category of Yesterday, Let It Be and Across the Universe, not to mention the many other songs co-written with Lennon? IMO, the only song he wrote after Abbey Road (the actual final Beatles album) that came close was Maybe I'm Amazed.
> 
> Yes, I listened to a number of his Wings albums during those post Beatles years, but, seriously, songs like Jet, Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey, Band on the Run? Maybe he did come close to the simple beautiful ballads of the Beatles period with 'My Love', but after that, it was all down hill. And, as others have pointed out: He really should, once and for all, leave the stage.


I beg to disagree. He's got good songs. His 'Memory Almost Full' was a classic. Excellent artistry. And yes, I know it's not of the same level as his Beatles catalogue but that's sacred. It's not that he's not as good as he was, he _can't _be as good as it was. Wings was a golden era honestly. I don't know why people don't like his post-Wings era solo career. Listen to 'Pure McCartney', maybe?

Aside from this, his voice isn't as good as it was, it's still pretty darn good. What's more amazing is that he's able to perform three hour concerts with the energy that he does. Respect for the man.

His efforts at classical music may not be anything extraordinary but, hey, at least they aren't utter garbage considering his formal training.

Again, any comparison to Beatles is impossible to match. It's reached a mythical status.


----------



## Badinerie (May 3, 2008)

To quote Kontrapunctus...


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Badinerie said:


> To quote Kontrapunctus...


Nothing to add


----------

