Paul and Linda McCartney's Legendary Album RAM Set for Deluxe Reissue


UK Release: 21st May 2012 - US Release: 22nd May 2012

Paul and Linda McCartney's 1971 album will be released across a variety of formats with new and exclusive content including a beautifully packaged Deluxe Edition Box Set - the ultimate collectable

"Ladies and gentlemen, this is an album from a long, long time ago, when the world was different. This is an album that is part of my history - it goes back to the wee hills of Scotland where it was formed. It's an album called RAM. It reminds me of my hippie days and the free attitude with which was created. I hope you're going to like it, because I do!" Paul McCartney, 2012

Following the successful recent reissues of McCartney, McCartney II, and this year's Grammy winner for Best Historical Album Band on the Run, RAM is the latest album from Paul's iconic back catalogue to get the deluxe Paul McCartney Archive Collection treatment. As with the previous releases in the series, Paul has personally overseen every aspect of the project and the result is spectacular. In keeping with the reissue campaign to date, the Deluxe Edition Box Set is the ultimate collectable for any fan of this album. Its stunningly presented 112-page book, photo prints, handwritten lyrics and notes, four CDs and a bonus film DVD, tells the full story of a classic album that has gone down in music history as one of the most revered in McCartney's catalogue.

RAM, originally released in May of 1971, is the only album to be credited to both Paul and Linda McCartney and was Paul's second post-Beatles LP. It was overshadowed at the time by the drama of the dissolution of The Beatles, as played out in the world's media. The album topped the charts hitting #1 in the UK and #2 in the US. While RAM polarized critics upon its release, music fans and critics alike since have overwhelmingly embraced it, with Rolling Stone, for example, revising their original review up to 4 stars. Recently RAM has enjoyed even further re-appraisal and acknowledgement including a number of tribute albums.

RAM was written by Paul and Linda, mostly at their Scottish farm on the Mull of Kintyre. In the autumn of 1970 they flew to New York to start the recording process. Without a band in place they auditioned and drafted musicians, who included future Wings drummer Denny Seiwell and guitarists David Spinozza and Hugh McCracken.

The band completed the album in early 1971 along with non-album tracks 'Another Day' and 'Oh Woman, Oh Why' which were released together as Paul's first post-Beatles single ahead of the release of RAM and became a Top 5 global hit. The multi-disc editions of the RAM reissue include both songs as bonus tracks. The album also gave Paul his first solo US number 1 single with 'Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey' and a Grammy win for Best Arrangement Accompanying Vocalists.

RAM was also issued in mono with alternate mixes, which were only made available to radio stations at the time. This version has gone on to become one of the most sought after McCartney collectables. It will now be commercially available for the first time ever on CD as part of the Deluxe Edition as well as a limited run on vinyl.

1977 saw the release of Thrillington, an instrumental interpretation of RAM, which was originally recorded in 1971 at London's Abbey Road Studios and was arranged by Richard Hewson. It was released under the pseudonym Percy 'Thrills' Thrillington, an unknown eccentric socialite who often cropped up in mysterious newspaper classifieds. In reality Percy was a character devised by Paul and Linda. The idea behind it was simply to have some fun and the concept of doing a full orchestral album was an ambition long held by Paul.

The additional film content features previously unreleased and exclusive content including the brand-new documentary, "Ramming' narrated by Paul, as well as the original music videos for 'Heart Of The Country' and '3 Legs'.

The remastering work was done at Abbey Road using the same team who recently remastered the complete Beatles' catalogue.

RAM will be available across a variety of different formats:

Standard Edition: 1 CD digipak Single disc, digitally remastered 12- track standard edition

Special Edition: 2 CD digipak Remastered album and 8-track bonus audio CD including rarities, b-sides and the hit single, 'Another Day'.

Deluxe Edition Box Set: 4 CD/1 DVD box set & download Remastered album, bonus audio CD, remastered Mono album, Thrillington CD, bonus film DVD, 112 page book, 5 prints in vintage style photographic wallet, 8 full size facsimiles of Paul's original handwritten lyric sheets and mini photographic book of outtakes from the original album cover photo shoot.

Hi-Res: 24bit 96kHz files of the remastered and bonus audio CD, accessed via a download code inserted on a card within the deluxe edition package

Vinyl: 2LP 180gm, gatefold vinyl with download Remastered album, bonus audio disc plus digital download of all 20 tracks

Limited Edition Mono Vinyl: 1LP, Remastered mono album

Digital: RAM will be available for download across a variation of digital configurations including Mastered for iTunes and High Resolution



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-24 05:42 by tatters.

....heck for a sec there I thought Dodge were runnin' ads on IORR.....



ROCKMAN

Quote
Rockman
....heck for a sec there I thought Dodge were runnin' ads on IORR.....

It's far worse than that. The Beatles are!

Excellent news. I had a feeling this was next on Paul's list.
Ram's a great album, better than most people remember.

Wow - been a long time coming this one. Macca's best album by far. A pop masterpiece that still holds up today. Wonder what CDs 3 and 4 will feature as presumably disc 2 will be the mono version.

Be great to hear his demos.

Here's the extra tracks on the bootleg The Alternate Ram

13. Little Woman Love [Rough Mix]
14. Sunshine Sometime[Rough Mix]
15. Rode All Night[Rough Mix]
16. A Love For You[Rough Mix]
17. Hey Diddle[Rough Mix]
18.Three legs[Acoustic]
19 Heart of the Country [Acoustic]
20. back Seat of My Car [Backing track]
21. Now Hear This[Promo Spot]
22.Now Hear This[Promo Spot]
23.Now Hear This[Promo Spot]
24.Now Hear This[Promo Spot]
25.Now Hear This[Promo Spot]
26.Now Hear This[Promo Spot]
27. Comments on Ram by Lennon

Thanks for the heads up Tatters



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-23 22:28 by Silver Dagger.

I have a cdr copy of the MONO Ram promo. I really like it and I'm not a huge Mac fan but I listen to it alot.

Linda's vocals notwithstanding, this album sounds to me like it's Paul's last batch of Beatles songs. Wouldn't be surprised if some of them (like some on the first album) were written before the Beatles officially broke up. None of his subsequent albums, not even BOTR, which is supposedly a "better" album, have the same Beatles feeling I get from RAM.

Quote
tatters
Linda's vocals notwithstanding, this album sounds to me like it's Paul's last batch of Beatles songs. Wouldn't be surprised if some of them (like some on the first album) were written before the Beatles officially broke up. None of his subsequent albums, not even BOTR, which is supposedly a "better" album, have the same Beatles feeling I get from RAM.

Yeah, I agree. Had to fast forward a bunch of years before Daytime Nightime Suffering that I thought was sort of Beatlesque.

Also, I didn't really hear a need for McCartney on very much of Lennon's solo work until the first time I heard Just Like Starting Over - not a favorite of mine at all, but seemed almost written for Paul's backing vocals to come in right in the middle.

Shame they didn't have a longer window of opportunity to do a few more things together.

Great album........love to hear it

__________________________

Uncle Albert is one of my favourite McCartney songs but this album isn't, Red Rose Speedway, Band on the Run and Venus and Mars are his best works from that period in my opinion.

awesome. mccartneys best

Rare Mono Mixes.









Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-24 01:35 by tatters.

Quote
tatters
Linda's vocals notwithstanding, this album sounds to me like it's Paul's last batch of Beatles songs. Wouldn't be surprised if some of them (like some on the first album) were written before the Beatles officially broke up. None of his subsequent albums, not even BOTR, which is supposedly a "better" album, have the same Beatles feeling I get from RAM.

I think Back Seat of My Car is the only song on this from The Beatles period. The rest were done prior to the album and the first album to say "Paul and Linda McCartney". Which caused a big stir from Dick James claiming Macca was trying to grab a great slab of royalties.

A lush pop landscape with wonderful melodies, lavish production, and some gritty down home funky rock. My favorite McCartney disc. Already pre-ordered the deluxe box set. Wonderful!

I only like Uncle Albert. In a recent McCartney biography, I read a Ringo quote from the time of RAM's release. Ringo said, "There's not a single tune on it." I think Ringo summed up the album well.

I bought it then, but I haven't listened to it since 1971. I remember the first side was good, and the second side was dreck. It was the first time I realized that a solo Beatle could suck.

It seems that more than any other McCartney solo release RAM has received the most (positive) reappraisal. My recollection is that at the time of release it was widely panned by critics. Christgau's review for example:

Paul and Linda McCartney: Ram [Apple, 1971]

"Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey" is a major annoyance. I tolerated McCartney's crotchets with the Beatles because his mates balanced them out; I enjoyed them mildly on McCartney because their scale was so modest; I enjoy them actively on "Monkberry Moon Delight" because it rocks and on "Smile Away" because it's vulgar and funny. But though nothing else here approaches the willful rhythm shifts and above-it-all silliness of the single, most of the songs are so lightweight they float away even as Paulie layers them down with caprices. If you're going to be eccentric, for goodness sake don't be pretentious about it.

C+

Quote
Glam Descendant
It seems that more than any other McCartney solo release RAM has received the most (positive) reappraisal. My recollection is that at the time of release it was widely panned by critics. Christgau's review for example:

Paul and Linda McCartney: Ram [Apple, 1971]

"Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey" is a major annoyance. I tolerated McCartney's crotchets with the Beatles because his mates balanced them out; I enjoyed them mildly on McCartney because their scale was so modest; I enjoy them actively on "Monkberry Moon Delight" because it rocks and on "Smile Away" because it's vulgar and funny. But though nothing else here approaches the willful rhythm shifts and above-it-all silliness of the single, most of the songs are so lightweight they float away even as Paulie layers them down with caprices. If you're going to be eccentric, for goodness sake don't be pretentious about it.

C+

Chistgau makes valid points here, but sometimes its best not to intellectualize the material.

Uncle Albert sounded pretty good coming over Top 40 radio in 1971 ....

"Rolling Stone" have "upgraded" the album to 4-stars according to the press release. But here's what originally appeared in the pages of that magazine:

By Jon Landau
July 8, 1971

Ram represents the nadir in the decomposition of Sixties rock thus far. For some, including myself, Self-Portrait had been secure in that position, but at least Self-Portrait was an album that you could hate, a record you could feel something over, even if it were nothing but regret. Ram is so incredibly inconsequential and so monumentally irrelevant you can't even do that with it: it is difficult to concentrate on, let alone dislike or even hate.

McCartney's work in the Beatles was always schizoid. On the one hand there were the rockers: "She's A Woman," "I'm Down," "If You Won't See Me," "Get Back," and "Lady Madonna"; on the other, the ballads and the schmaltz, including (in descending order), "Hey Jude," "She's Leaving Home," "Yesterday," "And I Love Her," "Taste of Honey" and "Till There Was You." Ram fulfills all the promise of "Till There Was You" and loses touch with the entire remainder of McCartney's own past. And it is so lacking in the taste that was one of the hallmarks of the Beatles that it strongly suggests Paul is not happy in his role as a solo artist, no matter how much he protests to the contrary.

The odd thing about it is that within the context of the Beatles, Paul's talents were beyond question. He was perhaps the most influential white bass player of the late Sixties, the only one of the Beatles with a keenly developed personal instrumental style. He was also the group's best melodist, and he surely had the best voice.

But, if it was Paul who used to polish up Lennon's bluntness and forced him to adapt a little style, it is by now apparent that Lennon held the reins in on McCartney's cutsie-pie, florid attempts at pure rock muzak. He was there to keep McCartney from going off the deep end that leads to an album as emotionally vacuous as Ram. Now left to their own devices, each has done what always came most naturally. Lennon has created a music of almost monomaniacal intensity and blunt style, while McCartney creates music with a fully developed veneer, little intensity, and no energy.

Thus the dissolution of the Beatles reveals that their compromises had always been psychological first, and musical second, and that without each other they both drift naturally to their own emotional-musical extreme. Lennon has the better of it for the moment, but he may falter yet: "Power to the People" was as awful in its own way as anything on Ram, and only a fool would write off a man of McCartney's past accomplishments on the basis of two albums (I'm not much of a fan of the last one either).

All of which makes it no less easy to deal with this very bad album from this very talented artist. For myself, I hear two good things on this record: "Eat At Home," a pleasant, if minor, evocation of the music of Buddy Holly (with some very nice updating), and "Sitting in the Back Seat of My Car," the album's production number.

The album's genre music — blues and old rock — is unbearably inept. On "Three Legs" they do strange and pointless things to the sound of the voice to liven it up; it doesn't work. "Smile Away" is sung with that exaggerated voice he used for the rock & roll medley in Let It Be: it is unpleasant. The "When I'm Sixty-Four" school of light English baubles is represented by "Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey," a piece with so many changes it never seems to come down anywhere, and in the places that it does, sounds like the worst piece of light music Paul has ever done. And "Monkberry Moon Delight" is the bore to end all bores: Paul repeats a riff for five and a half minutes to no apparent purpose.

The lowest point on the album, and the one that most clearly indicates its failures, is "Heart of the Country." It is an evenly paced, finger-picking styled tune, with very light jazz overtones, obviously intended as Paul's idea of "mellow." Somehow, his lyrics about the joys of the country ring false. Rather than a sense of self-acceptance or pride, I get a feeling of self-pity and self-justification from this cut, feelings that are almost masked by music so competent, in fact routine, that it all seems to slip away. Compare it to an earlier piece of music somewhat in the same vein, "Blackbird." That song has all the charm and grace "Heart of the Country" tries for, but also the depth, purpose, and conviction, which are the missing ingredients from Ram as a whole.

These days groups are little more than collections of solo artists. The idea of a group as a unit with an identity of its own has become increasingly passe as groups become less and less stable: they seldom stay together long enough to achieve such an identity. But the Beatles were obviously a true group and history is now proving that it was greater than the sum of their parts. Collectively, the Beatles had a way of maximizing each of their individual strengths and minimizing each of their individual flaws. Individually, none of them can create on the same level, no matter how good some individual recordings may be.

For none of the Beatles is a truly self-sufficient artist and therefore none of them seems to function at his best as a soloist. In this light, Paul has simply proven to be the most vulnerable: the group hid most of his weaknesses longer and better than they did the others so that they were the most unexpected now that they have finally become visible. But now they have become visible and the results can scarcely be more satisfying to McCartney himself than they will be to the many people who will find this record wanting. McCartney and Ram both prove that Paul benefited immensely from collaboration and that he seems to be dying on the vine as a result of his own self-imposed musical isolation. What he finally decides to do about it is anybody's guess, but it is the only thing that makes Paul McCartney's musical future worth thinking about and hoping for.



Read more: [www.rollingstone.com]

Quote
Glam Descendant
"Rolling Stone" have "upgraded" the album to 4-stars according to the press release. But here's what originally appeared in the pages of that magazine:

By Jon Landau
July 8, 1971

Ram represents the nadir in the decomposition of Sixties rock thus far. For some, including myself, Self-Portrait had been secure in that position, but at least Self-Portrait was an album that you could hate, a record you could feel something over, even if it were nothing but regret. Ram is so incredibly inconsequential and so monumentally irrelevant you can't even do that with it: it is difficult to concentrate on, let alone dislike or even hate.

McCartney's work in the Beatles was always schizoid. On the one hand there were the rockers: "She's A Woman," "I'm Down," "If You Won't See Me," "Get Back," and "Lady Madonna"; on the other, the ballads and the schmaltz, including (in descending order), "Hey Jude," "She's Leaving Home," "Yesterday," "And I Love Her," "Taste of Honey" and "Till There Was You." Ram fulfills all the promise of "Till There Was You" and loses touch with the entire remainder of McCartney's own past. And it is so lacking in the taste that was one of the hallmarks of the Beatles that it strongly suggests Paul is not happy in his role as a solo artist, no matter how much he protests to the contrary.

The odd thing about it is that within the context of the Beatles, Paul's talents were beyond question. He was perhaps the most influential white bass player of the late Sixties, the only one of the Beatles with a keenly developed personal instrumental style. He was also the group's best melodist, and he surely had the best voice.

But, if it was Paul who used to polish up Lennon's bluntness and forced him to adapt a little style, it is by now apparent that Lennon held the reins in on McCartney's cutsie-pie, florid attempts at pure rock muzak. He was there to keep McCartney from going off the deep end that leads to an album as emotionally vacuous as Ram. Now left to their own devices, each has done what always came most naturally. Lennon has created a music of almost monomaniacal intensity and blunt style, while McCartney creates music with a fully developed veneer, little intensity, and no energy.

Thus the dissolution of the Beatles reveals that their compromises had always been psychological first, and musical second, and that without each other they both drift naturally to their own emotional-musical extreme. Lennon has the better of it for the moment, but he may falter yet: "Power to the People" was as awful in its own way as anything on Ram, and only a fool would write off a man of McCartney's past accomplishments on the basis of two albums (I'm not much of a fan of the last one either).

All of which makes it no less easy to deal with this very bad album from this very talented artist. For myself, I hear two good things on this record: "Eat At Home," a pleasant, if minor, evocation of the music of Buddy Holly (with some very nice updating), and "Sitting in the Back Seat of My Car," the album's production number.

The album's genre music — blues and old rock — is unbearably inept. On "Three Legs" they do strange and pointless things to the sound of the voice to liven it up; it doesn't work. "Smile Away" is sung with that exaggerated voice he used for the rock & roll medley in Let It Be: it is unpleasant. The "When I'm Sixty-Four" school of light English baubles is represented by "Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey," a piece with so many changes it never seems to come down anywhere, and in the places that it does, sounds like the worst piece of light music Paul has ever done. And "Monkberry Moon Delight" is the bore to end all bores: Paul repeats a riff for five and a half minutes to no apparent purpose.

The lowest point on the album, and the one that most clearly indicates its failures, is "Heart of the Country." It is an evenly paced, finger-picking styled tune, with very light jazz overtones, obviously intended as Paul's idea of "mellow." Somehow, his lyrics about the joys of the country ring false. Rather than a sense of self-acceptance or pride, I get a feeling of self-pity and self-justification from this cut, feelings that are almost masked by music so competent, in fact routine, that it all seems to slip away. Compare it to an earlier piece of music somewhat in the same vein, "Blackbird." That song has all the charm and grace "Heart of the Country" tries for, but also the depth, purpose, and conviction, which are the missing ingredients from Ram as a whole.

These days groups are little more than collections of solo artists. The idea of a group as a unit with an identity of its own has become increasingly passe as groups become less and less stable: they seldom stay together long enough to achieve such an identity. But the Beatles were obviously a true group and history is now proving that it was greater than the sum of their parts. Collectively, the Beatles had a way of maximizing each of their individual strengths and minimizing each of their individual flaws. Individually, none of them can create on the same level, no matter how good some individual recordings may be.

For none of the Beatles is a truly self-sufficient artist and therefore none of them seems to function at his best as a soloist. In this light, Paul has simply proven to be the most vulnerable: the group hid most of his weaknesses longer and better than they did the others so that they were the most unexpected now that they have finally become visible. But now they have become visible and the results can scarcely be more satisfying to McCartney himself than they will be to the many people who will find this record wanting. McCartney and Ram both prove that Paul benefited immensely from collaboration and that he seems to be dying on the vine as a result of his own self-imposed musical isolation. What he finally decides to do about it is anybody's guess, but it is the only thing that makes Paul McCartney's musical future worth thinking about and hoping for.



Read more: [www.rollingstone.com]

Typical Rolling Stone. Oh, so now it's good, eh? Notice the author. Dylan was right when he said Landau "got his head up his ass."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-24 05:15 by tomk.

Quote
tomk

Typical Rolling Stone. Oh, so now it's good, eh? Notice the author. Dylan was right when he said Landau "has his head up his ass."

Yeah, but I can understand how someone writing about Ram in 1971 would think it was horrendous. With The White Album, Abbey Road, and Let It Be having all been released in just the previous two and a half years, the reviewer could hardly be expected to come to any other conclusion. Of course it sounds good to us now. We're comparing it to everything that he's done since. And it compares very favorably to everything that he's done since.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-24 05:38 by tatters.

Quote
tatters

Quote
tomk

Typical Rolling Stone. Oh, so now it's good, eh? Notice the author. Dylan was right when he said Landau "has his head up his ass."

Yeah, but I can understand how someone writing about this album in 1971, a year in which some of the greatest albums ever made were released, would think Ram stunk. With The White Album, Abbey Road, and Let It Be having all been released in just the previous two and a half years, the reviewer could hardly be expected to come to any other conclusion. Of course it sounds good to us now. We're comparing it to everything that he's done since. And it compares very favorably to everything that he's done since.

I thought it sounded good back then. I'm not not comparing it to everything he's done since. McCartney has always said that he put a bit more "polish" on Ram than the first McCartney album and was surprised of the backlash. I think it's odd that RS now thinks it's pretty good now when back then they panned it. Then again, it's been 40 years (holy smokes!). Sure, some albums get better with age. Ram and McCartney I are good examples.

I'm sorry but that Rolling Stones review from '71 is right on in many ways.

Quote
tatters
Linda's vocals notwithstanding, this album sounds to me like it's Paul's last batch of Beatles songs. Wouldn't be surprised if some of them (like some on the first album) were written before the Beatles officially broke up. None of his subsequent albums, not even BOTR, which is supposedly a "better" album, have the same Beatles feeling I get from RAM.

I agree completely tatters, you are probably right about the writing period, and he probably used the same equipment, engineers, studio, microphones, ect. which certainly helped give it the Beatles feel.

I was just in first grade but I clearly remember trying my best to sing Uncle Albert with my motley group of 6 year old friends. We knew that song before we knew who the Beatles were, strange that. It is in fact the song which got me looking into records instead of toys when close to a shopping area. "were so sorry, uncle albert..." loved it. peace

>I agree completely tatters, you are probably right about the writing period, and he probably used the same equipment, engineers, studio, microphones, ect

Uh, no. Recorded in New York City with a new batch of folks (& equipment).

New York City? Wow that sheep on the cover must have been nervous. lol

Thanks for the correction. More detail please when you get time. At rhe Record Plant? Who engineered/produced it? Mixed/Mastered same place? thanks. peace

Quote
Naturalust
New York City? Wow that sheep on the cover must have been nervous. lol

Thanks for the correction. More detail please when you get time. At rhe Record Plant? Who engineered/produced it? Mixed/Mastered same place? thanks. peace

McCartney's solo sessions can be found here. Click on the year.

[webpages.charter.net]

I honestly think it's time to put a stop to the whole "rerelease" business, for everyone. Including the Stones.

It's just a cynical cash-in that's incredibly cheap to do and generates revenue. It's the "reality TV" of the record business. Anybody else agree? Sometimes things should simply be left undisturbed. If you want to promote old records that's one thing, just don't change them.

Do you really need a fake reprinted concert ticket and a t-shirt to go along with a $70 rerelease of an album? It's nuts.

One of the great albums from the period.

Rolling Stone's review are quite laughable. It's very obvious that they were trying to make McCartney the scape-goat of the whole Beatles affair at the time. And to judge it even lower than Dylans Self-Portrait says a lot about Rolling Stone in general...

RAM isn't a "perfect" record. But it contains all McCartneys trademarks, like it or not. It holds as one one his great albums with great songs, styles and production.

Sure McCartney isn't the greatest lyricist the world have seen (though he has written many great lyrics).

His records have always been a journey in great production, songwriting and melody -not a lot else, and the records has not tried to be anything else than that. He has always been a master in creating moods in his songs.

McCartney has never tried to be anything other than a songwriter. Unlike Lennon who did statements of everything, he just created MUSIC.

For those who believe that rock music should "mean" something and change the world, McCartney is not for them.

For those of us who just likes a great pop record, McCartney is great. Always has been.

Quote
tomk

Quote
tatters

Quote
tomk

Typical Rolling Stone. Oh, so now it's good, eh? Notice the author. Dylan was right when he said Landau "has his head up his ass."

Yeah, but I can understand how someone writing about this album in 1971, a year in which some of the greatest albums ever made were released, would think Ram stunk. With The White Album, Abbey Road, and Let It Be having all been released in just the previous two and a half years, the reviewer could hardly be expected to come to any other conclusion. Of course it sounds good to us now. We're comparing it to everything that he's done since. And it compares very favorably to everything that he's done since.

I thought it sounded good back then. I'm not not comparing it to everything he's done since. McCartney has always said that he put a bit more "polish" on Ram than the first McCartney album and was surprised of the backlash. I think it's odd that RS now thinks it's pretty good now when back then they panned it. Then again, it's been 40 years (holy smokes!). Sure, some albums get better with age. Ram and McCartney I are good examples.

I think you have to compare albums to other albums that are being released at the same time. In 1971 some of rock's greatest artists were putting out some of their very best work. It was rock's greatest year, imo. Ram doesn't really stack up to competition like Sticky Fingers, Who's Next, Led Zeppelin IV, or What's Going On. It certainly doesn't compare to Paul's work on latter day Beatles albums. Abbey Road was only a year and a half old when Ram was released. No wonder reviewers thought he had completely "lost it".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-24 18:51 by tatters.

An interesting rarity.