13 von 13 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
A. S. D.
- Veröffentlicht auf Amazon.com
This book is pretty Anti-Paul if you ask me. The author paints McCartney in a pretty bad light through much of it and it seems to really get a lot of input from former associates of Paul's, some of them with an obvious axe to grind. As an example, first Wings guitarist- Henry McCullough (sp).
According to the author, Henry really hated the fact that McCartney wanted Henry to play things the same each time in the studio by the numbers, but Henry wanted to improvise more. This might be the case, but if you're recording and the music is written by a writer with Paul's reputation, the writer has a right to get what he wants out of the recorded performance. It's HIS vision, not Henry's that's being realized. Also, ANYONE that's listened to the early bootlegs of Wings college shows knows that Henry was not great at improvisation, at least with those early shows. There were times when you could tell that alcohol was the 6th Wings member and Henry's solos would go extremely out of key and out of the pocket. To listen to "Henry's Blues" from those boots is an exercise in patience. As an author, it's good to note that this bugged Henry. But man, listen to the performances and maybe you can see where Paul was coming from by wanting Henry to stick to the format. Of COURSE he'd want things to be the same. Bless Henry, he's a great player for sure, but during that period, things were not tight and Paul, as a band leader had the job of reigning it in. Seems that rather than just take Henry's word on it, the author might've wanted to research what was coming out of Henry's amp at the time.
There were similar quotes from Dave Spinoza. Hey Dave, it's Paul's music, he's paying for the studio, and the musicians. He SHOULD be able to say "Yo Dave, please play it like this. I know what I'm after.". The author just makes it sound like Paul was a dictator just to be a jerk. Hardly. The guy is a musical genius and if Paul says "Hey, don't play here" then don't. Why does this make McCartney a bad guy?
Same with Elvis Costello. Paul didn't want the stuff he wrote with Elvis to be roughly recorded. Paul, at that time wasn't into that. So what? Elvis Costello is gonna argue Paul MF McCartney? SERIOUS?
There are also a lot of errors in it and things that were repeated in other, less-than-accurate books on McCartney. As an example, The Beatles did NOT helicopter into Shea stadium or out of it. If you've seen the Shea film, you know this. If you've read other books on them, you also know this. Small point, but there are a lot of these kinds of things in the book that the author would pass on as facts that simply are not.
Most of the book is about "Beatle Paul" even though that was only a period of about 12 years (8 years after The Beatles "made it" in 62 and a few years prior). The Wings stuff is a very tiny portion of the book as is the after-Wings stuff. Granted, it could be argued that people don't want to read about those years (wrong) but still, it should've been more balanced time-wise. The Wings years were pretty good years for McCartney and that should be acknowledged. While the other 3 Beatles did what they were doing, Paul made a complete new career for himself and the guy was way successful at it. The fact that he's 68 and still going strong is a testament to that.
The author wastes no time in putting down a lot of McCartney's work too and seems to really get on him because he is a guy that likes to try anything. So what if he paints. I'm sure Paul doesn't think he's the next Davinci, yet the author would have you believe that Paul sees himself in a similar light.
The facts are that McCartney was always a driven guy. He tried a ton of new things and branched out into things the other guys didn't do. Why is that a bad thing? As an example, the Liverpool Oratorio. Okay, so Paul tried his hand at classical composing and did an adequate job. Yet the author seems to hang things on the fact that it did so well simply out of Paul's name recognition. That could be true I suppose, but to print that as fact seems pretty biased. It was a successful endeavor for him. So much so, that he did another one after it.
Just seemed like the author just really wanted to put McCartney's work down, without really going into it too much. One thing that I did notice that the author kind of pointed out- each time Paul lost someone key in his life, he WOULD do things that were great very soon afterward. I hadn't noticed that before and that was a bit of a revelation.
Take this from the book:
"Paul preferred to portray himself walking in light, bathed in the devotion of the fans who paid premium rates to see his face, to hear his voice, to feel the spirit of the music that had defined or even changed their lives. This is what Paul felt as he traveled the world..."
How the heck does the author know WHAT McCartney preferred?? Paul was certainly not interviewed for the book.
If you liked the books by Albert Goldman and Geoffrey Giuliano- you'll probably like this one as well. For me, it seemed pretty biased.