Paul McCartney: The Boys of Dungeon Lane review  at 83, his gift for melody still astounds 1%

By Alexis Petridis0%

5/24/2026, 11:01:10 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Pessimism Bias, and Hasty Generalization, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 44.8% saturation with 474 hits. Analysis detected 3,272 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,059 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of 1% (21,839 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 99.80% of the article peer group.

The rock legend in the autumn of their years who chooses to release a new album is well advised to get themselves an angle. 
If the music that made you legendary was written and recorded long ago  and is highly unlikely to be displaced in the public’s affections by anything you do now  it’s good to have something that suggests a sense of purpose, beyond just adding to an already vast back catalogue for the sake of it. 
We’ve recently seen it with Bob Dylan’s Rough and Rowdy Ways, rooted in its jawdropping 17-minute survey of American political history, Murder Most Foul; and with Bruce Springsteen’s Only the Strong Survive, with its canny covers of soul and R&B classics. 
And an angle is clearly something that has occurred to Paul McCartney, too. 
From its title referencing a road in the suburb of Liverpool where McCartney spent his early childhood, to the circumstances of its launch  the first single Days We Left Behind was premiered not on YouTube or Spotify but BBC Radio Merseyside  his 27th studio album has been presented as a nostalgic look back at what you might call his pre-Fab years. 
The idea has certainly generated excitement and not a little emotion on the part of fans. 
McCartney seems to have spent the last few years crossing the Ts and dotting the Is on various aspects of his past: reworking the footage of the Let It Be recording sessions to cast it in a more positive light than the 1970 film of the same name; completing the one song left unfinished during the mid-90s reunion of the surviving Beatles; releasing a documentary designed to remind the public that, for all the critical opprobrium thrown their way, Wings were absolutely huge in the 1970s. 
A burst of sentimental autobiographical reminiscence adds to the faint but detectable sense that his career is drawing to a close. 
But before we get too maudlin, it’s worth noting that The Boys from Dungeon Lane is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a concept album. 
There are certainly songs here that fit the advance billing, of which more later. 
But there’s also Mountain Top, a song about a girl tripping on mushrooms at Glastonbury, set to a kind of 21st-century update of the oft-maligned subgenre record collectors call toytown psychedelia. 
“Pumpkin pies in the skies also try to hypnotise,” sings Macca over a harpsichord backing, his vocal put through an effect that approximates the tremolo sound of a Leslie speaker  a technique pioneered on Tomorrow Never Knows  while producer Andrew Watt gets to go nuts with the phasing effects and the I Am the Walrus-evoking bursts of looped spoken word. 
There is Momma Gets By, which revisits the theme of Lady Madonna in noticeably less upbeat mode, big on sighing strings; and Life Can Be Hard, an unashamed and particularly sparkly example of what John Lennon once waspishly dubbed “Paul’s granny music”  the Tin Pan Alley-indebted aspect of his songwriting that gave the world When I’m Sixty-Four and Your Mother Should Know  with a hint of Dixieland jazz in its arrangement. 
There are Ripples in a Pond, Come Inside and We Two, the kind of lyrically slender love songs for which McCartney would have been critically clobbered in the 70s, but which these days seem impossibly charming, not least because they demonstrate his extraordinary melodic skill: listening to We Two, you find yourself boggling a little at the sheer volume of deftly executed twists and turns he manages to cram into a something so ostensibly slight. 
You could argue the songs that arrive as advertised are nothing new, thematically speaking. 
The Beatles were harking back to their childhoods 60 years ago, their memories jogged by LSD: “It was a case of four Scousers exploring inner space and just finding more and more Scouser down there,” as their press officer Derek Taylor wryly remarked, hence Penny Lane and Strawberry Fields Forever, which some Beatle historians insist were intended as part of an album devoted to their Liverpool youth. 
In McCartney’s 21st-century oeuvre, Queenie Eye, Early Days, On My Way to Work, That Was Me and indeed most of 2012’s Kisses on the Bottom  comprised largely of songs he remembered his father playing “when I was a kid and had family sing-songs”  have boasted a distinctly sepia tone. 
That said, there’s no doubt that the similarly rooted songs on The Boys of Dungeon Lane pack a considerable emotional punch. 
If McCartney’s latter-day voice  noticeably thinner and shakier than it once was  is a problem when essaying Band on the Run on Saturday Night Live, it’s curiously effective here, a constant reminder that these are songs written by an octogenarian, that the events they’re describing happened a very long time ago. 
As You Lie There recalls an unrequited crush to an accompaniment that, with its episodic structure and guitars fat with compression and distortion, seems haunted by the ghost of Wings, while Salesman Saint details his parents’ financial travails, sliding into a burst of 40s swing at its close. 
Down South recalls hitchhiking in the company of George Harrison: there’s something oddly moving about its understated conclusion: “It was a good way to get to know you.” 
The duet with Ringo Starr, Home to Us, barrels along in a manner that vaguely recalls Oasis’s She’s Electric  how’s that for circularity?  powered by the infectious sense that everyone involved is having a high old time. 
As is usual with contemporary McCartney, there are a couple of songs that don’t quite click  the rocking Come Inside, the unremarkable First Star of the Night  but The Boys of Dungeon Lane seems noticeably more purposeful than a lot of his 21st-century output: if the advance publicity seems more like an angle than reflection of its thematic unity, it still feels focused in a way that 2013’s New or 2018’s Egypt Station did not. 
Perhaps his approach was driven by a sense of the clock ticking: if you’re going to make an album at 83, you’d better make something that counts, which The Boys of Dungeon Lane does. 
The Boys of Dungeon Lane is released 29 May 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 13.9%Alexis Petridis: 4.0%the Guardian: 3.7%Confirmation Bias13.9%This article: 5.3%Alexis Petridis: 1.9%the Guardian: 0.6%Anchoring Bias5.3%This article: 13.9%Alexis Petridis: 3.5%the Guardian: 3.1%Availability Heuristic13.9%This article: 0.0%Alexis Petridis: 1.3%the Guardian: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexis Petridis: 0.5%the Guardian: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexis Petridis: 0.8%the Guardian: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 8.2%Alexis Petridis: 2.2%the Guardian: 6.1%Framing Effect8.2%This article: 0.0%Alexis Petridis: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 8.4%Alexis Petridis: 0.2%the Guardian: 0.6%Status Quo Bias8.4%This article: 0.0%Alexis Petridis: 0.3%the Guardian: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexis Petridis: 1.7%the Guardian: 2.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 24.8%Alexis Petridis: 2.3%the Guardian: 2.1%Pessimism Bias24.8%This article: 12.7%Alexis Petridis: 16.5%the Guardian: 10.4%Negativity Bias12.7%This article: 8.1%Alexis Petridis: 0.5%the Guardian: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias8.1%This article: 5.3%Alexis Petridis: 2.5%the Guardian: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error5.3%This article: 0.0%Alexis Petridis: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexis Petridis: 1.0%the Guardian: 1.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexis Petridis: 0.5%the Guardian: 0.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 28.0%Alexis Petridis: 5.4%the Guardian: 3.2%Halo Effect28.0%This article: 0.0%Alexis Petridis: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexis Petridis: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 12.3%Alexis Petridis: 1.5%the Guardian: 1.2%Recency Bias12.3%This article: 4.1%Alexis Petridis: 0.2%the Guardian: 0.4%Primacy Effect4.1%This article: 0.0%Alexis Petridis: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexis Petridis: 0.3%the Guardian: 2.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexis Petridis: 2.0%the Guardian: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 19.1%Alexis Petridis: 1.6%the Guardian: 3.8%Appeal to Authority19.1%This article: 2.3%Alexis Petridis: 1.3%the Guardian: 1.7%False Dilemma2.3%This article: 0.0%Alexis Petridis: 0.5%the Guardian: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexis Petridis: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 22.2%Alexis Petridis: 11.4%the Guardian: 6.3%Hasty Generalization22.2%This article: 0.0%Alexis Petridis: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 3.7%Alexis Petridis: 1.4%the Guardian: 0.7%Bandwagon3.7%This article: 7.8%Alexis Petridis: 1.2%the Guardian: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion7.8%This article: 8.5%Alexis Petridis: 0.7%the Guardian: 0.9%Begging the Question8.5%This article: 14.4%Alexis Petridis: 1.9%the Guardian: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)14.4%This article: 0.0%Alexis Petridis: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexis Petridis: 0.9%the Guardian: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexis Petridis: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 4.8%Alexis Petridis: 0.1%the Guardian: 0.4%Composition/Division4.8%This article: 11.6%Alexis Petridis: 1.4%the Guardian: 3.1%Anecdotal11.6%This article: 0.0%Alexis Petridis: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.2%Alexis Petridis: 1.1%the Guardian: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.2%This article: 0.0%Alexis Petridis: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.3%Alexis Petridis: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Middle Ground7.3%This article: 0.0%Alexis Petridis: 0.4%the Guardian: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexis Petridis: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexis Petridis: 0.3%the Guardian: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.9%Alexis Petridis: 1.9%the Guardian: 1.6%Unattributed Quote5.9%This article: 0.0%Alexis Petridis: 1.1%the Guardian: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 44.8%Alexis Petridis: 28.6%the Guardian: 10.4%Biased Writer Voice44.8%This article: 2.3%Alexis Petridis: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.8%Indoctrination2.3%This article: 0.0%Alexis Petridis: 0.0%the Guardian: 3.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexis Petridis: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.2%Alexis Petridis: 0.6%the Guardian: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.2%

1059 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker5.9%attributed speech997writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 56 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 63 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 86 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coveragePaul McCartney • 62 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 73 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 75 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 67 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 51 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 53 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 48 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 77 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Paul McCartney

100%flagged-word coverage
62 attributed words100% of attributed speech96% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Paul McCartney: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-47.5 ptsWriter: 47.5%Paul McCartney: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -3.4 ptsWriter: 3.4%Paul McCartney: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-2.4 ptsWriter: 2.4%Paul McCartney: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.