Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

My conflicted emotions about Paul McCartney


heymisterk

Recommended Posts

Posted

What do you guys think about Paul McCartney's solo/Wings stuff? I would say I am conflicted at best. As a Beatle, I really do think he was Lennon's equal (or damn close; some would say they preferred Mac's stuff.) In reading some of the Rolling Stone album reviews and Beatles biographies, one gets the sense that Lennon was, indeed, the superior talent...one listen to "Revolver' though, in my mind, contradicts this view.

 

Paul McCartney put out what I think to be some really good to great stuff in his solo career: Band on Run; Flowers in the Dirt (Elvis Costello brought out some good stuff in him); and, I would argue, the Chaos and Creation album a couple of years ago. Even solo albums that were panned always had moments of sheer brilliance.

 

But that brilliance, I think, was weighted down by Saccharine-y nonsense, in my opinion. I think that songs like "My Love", "Wonderful Christmas Time", and - God help us - "Ebony and Ivory" really took a toll on his reputation as a legitimate rocker. It was, as many critics have argued, that without Lennon's veto and editing power, Mac was allowed to put out whatever dreck he wanted.

 

Still, even when listening to something like, say, "Silly Love Songs', which is silly indeed, I am always blown away by his sense of melody and the melodic sense he brings to his incredible bass playing.

 

So, for those of you who have an opinion, what do you think? :-k

Posted

I think Mac could play a "Bach toccata" on a tugboat whistle.

 

Sometimes the whole is greater than the sum of two parts.

 

 

 

That is true for sure. I am not a huge fan of Lennon's solo stuff either, though I think his first solo album is a masterpiece, though it takes time to warm up to.

Posted

Interesting topic indeed

 

And the stuff of debate...heated or otherwise.... [biggrin]

 

It has been said that Paul was the driving force behind later Beatles' output

 

When there was a possibility the other 3 were bored and taking too many drugs or whatever

 

No doubt about the synergy of L/Mc and the 4 all together

 

Purely personal opinion...I never really warmed to the solo efforts of L, H and S

 

But have ongoing pleasure from the 10 or so great Mc solo compositions (Ram etc), works of imagination, humour and musicality.....

 

V

 

:-({|=

Posted

.

 

The Guinness Book Of Records lists Macca as the most successful musician and composer in popular music history - you can't have too many throw aways and make the top of that list.

 

There's no need to run through all of Macca's accomplishments and accolades - it's pretty obvious his considerable talents are highly appreciated world wide. Still, there are plenty of pundits out there that strive to make a reputation of their own by slamming someone else's talents and accomplishments. Lennon, George and Ringo have all received their share of pans and slams too. Despite the complaints and slams over his 50+ year career, Macca is still in the game and still being highly appreciated world wide. With Macca's huge catalog, of course there's some stuff I like better and some I might not care to hear too often, but that doesn't effect my emotions about Macca or how I rate his talent - no conflicts here, I think he's a rare and great talent.

 

218px-Paul_McCartney_Arms.svg.png

 

.

Posted

Absolutely brilliant musician, singer, song writer, bassist, pianist, guitarist...the list goes on awhile. Paul, John, George and Ringo together made stuff happen that was almost extra-terrestrial it was so mind-blowing, even to this day. Paul is one dude I would want to sit and listen to stories from the road with!

Posted

I have always liked Paul McCartney and Wings. I think it is just as good stuff as he did with the Beatles.

 

Regarding "Silly Love Songs":

It had that very creative vocal round in the song (How/I can I tell/Love you/you about...). The bass was also off the hook as stated earlier, and that innovative intro was cool.

 

"Arrow Through Me" is one of my favorites.

Posted

IMO, between Paul and John, Paul was more musical and had a better feel for melody. John was more cerebral.

Posted

Paul's always been the more "rounded" one, musically. He used Vaudeville,

Broadway, as well as Rock, Folk, Pop, and even Country, as his influences.

That all reflects, in his "Beatles" music, as well as his solo efforts. Why

limit one's self, when you don't have to? I'm constantly amazed, at his

quality, of music, overall. Even his "clunkers," aren't THAT bad...and

often, a lot more interesting that any of today's "cookie cutter pop music!"

He's always been the one that was the most (obvious) positive, in attitude,

as well. The perfect opposite of Lennon, who could be very caustic, in wit.

Both men, were/are brilliant, even "geniuses!" Frankly, I think George was,

too, in his own way. So...you many not like Paul's work, but there's no denying

his considerable, and awesome talent! I've always (personally) felt like

comparing Paul, to John, was a bit like comparing "The Beatles," to "The

Rolling Stones," back in the day. Both had their almost manic fan base,

and, Both were great, though very different! "I" never really "compared"

them, as in a preference of one, over the other. But, appreciated them, for

what they each did best! That goes for the bands, as well as John, Paul, George,

and Ringo, individually.

 

CB

Posted

All great comments. Here is what I have noticed as well: critics tend to favor Lennon; musicians tend to favor McCartney, if there is any favoritism at all. When I first started taking guitar lessons in high school, my teacher hated Lennon, and would only teach me McCartney's songs.

 

Don't misunderstand me: there is no debating the fact that Mac is one of the monumental talents of all rock history. And he has the catalogue to prove it. In one interview I read, he said he asked George Martin if he would always continue to have to justify himself against Lennon's "rebel" reputation, and Martin said, "Yeah, forever."

Posted

Paul was by far the best musician in the Beatles (that cat could play any instrument and his bass playing is legendary) but I think sometimes that hurt his ability to filter or edit his songs; especially with his solo material. Lennon may have been the big jerk in the group (his treatment of George was abusive), but I think he wrote better songs on the later Beatles records. I more appreciate Lennon's desire to put more edge on their sound post Sgt. Peppers and think Lennon's criticism that some of Paul's songs were granny music was fair.

Posted

Well back to the original post at hand. Obviously Paul is an enormous talent. You can say what you want about his place in the Beatles and his comparison to Lennon but there is no denying his chops.

 

Certainly Paul's solo work suffered as did John's without their partner there to refine an unfinished idea. I think much of their genius as songwriters was the ability to meld song bits and fragments into full fledged songs. "We Can Work It Out" is one example where John's "Life is very short" minor key refrain takes the song to a whole other level.

 

The solo work of all three was hit and miss on a whole and this is from a guy that bought every new release religiously.

 

For me personally the good stuff outweighs the bad on just about every single album but it's far more complicated than just Lennon wrote the heavy stuff and Macca wrote the ballads.

 

My fave solo records by all four.

John- Imagine, Walls and Bridges

Paul- Ram, Band on the Run, Wings over America (live)

George- All Things Must Pass, 33 1/3, Cloud Nine

Ringo- Ringo, Time Takes Time

 

 

My least fav solo records

John- Sometime in New York City

Paul- Broadstreet

George- Gone Troppo

Ringo- every other release (lol)

Posted

 

It was, as many critics have argued, that without Lennon's veto and editing power, Mac was allowed to put out whatever dreck he wanted.

 

 

Lennon wanted to make "number 9" a single. I think it was a group effort to balance everyone's creative output.

Posted

there are a couple f documentaries on Lennon and McCartney, one from the Beatles era and the other post.

 

I cannot recall the names but this is the post-Beatles DVD.

 

http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Composing_Outside_The_Beatles_Lennon_McCartney_1973-1980/70207246?trkid=2361637

 

EDIT: Actually here the are, there are two Beatles-era DVDs on the subject.

 

http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Beatles_Composing_the_Beatles_Songbook_Lennon_and_McCartney/70089391?trkid=2361637

 

http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Composing_the_Beatles_Songbook_Lennon_and_McCartney_1966-1970/70108953?trkid=2361637

Posted

I think The White Album displayed the best AND the worst of John and Paul "having their way" as individual songwriters. I believe that Revolution 9 is the worst Beatles song ever. On the other hand, Honey Pie is undeniably fruity.

 

I will say this about McCartney: the guy continues to play live AND make new music, and a lot of it is very good. I also know that he and Dave Grohl are friends, and there was talk that Macca would make "a hard rock album" in Grohl's basement, just like the last FF album.

Posted

Personally, I think George was the only who's Solo stuff was as good as the Beatles. I'm not really into Lennon or McCartney's Quirky solo stuff. George seemed to have the most to say after the breakup.

Posted

I believe that Revolution 9 is the worst Beatles song ever.

 

No it's not. "You're Mother Should Know" is the worst Beatle song ever.

 

Craig

Posted

No it's not. "You're Mother Should Know" is the worst Beatle song ever.

 

Craig

 

 

LOL...now Craig! You may hate it, but it's actually a nice song, melodically,

and structure wise. And, it's a perfect example, of Macca's "Vaudeville" influences,

from his father (and Mother's) music era. It's not "Rock!" But, for what it

is...(get ready to "flame me")...I've always kinda liked it! [blush] :D

 

CB

Posted

LOL...now Craig! You may hate it, but it's actually a nice song, melodically,

and structure wise. And, it's a perfect example, of Macca's "Vaudeville" influences,

from his father (and Mother's) music era. It's not "Rock!" But, for what it

is...(get ready to "flame me")...I've always kinda liked it! [blush] :D

 

CB

 

Consider yourself flamed. That's what Lennon was talking about when he called it granny music.

Posted

Consider yourself flamed. That's what Lennon was talking about when he called it granny music.

 

I actually disliked "Hello Goodbye" even more. To quote Lennon: "Smells a mile away, doesn't it!"

 

One thing I admired about Lennon more as a Beatle is that he had more of a sense of keeping the whole BAND involved and valuing what they did as an individual. Stories are legendary about Paul telling George EXACTLY what notes to play on a solo; George has been quoted as saying this. For John, the only song ever recorded without any other Beatles input is the wonderful "Julia".

 

Perhaps that brings us back to what so many people say: the relationship between John and Paul was necessary because each brought out the best and fought back the worst in the other's writing.

 

A bit on the tangent here: I still think much of Paul's solo material is underrated, while also thinking some of it has been rightfully panned.

Posted

Macca is a great musician but I think that George is a better all round musician as he had an inherant ability to pick up just about any instrument and play it proficiently.Paul's songs were generally upbeat and about love,George's were more about intangible things,and John's songs tended to be more introspective,melancholy and brooding. Paul continues to put out hit material that scores high on the charts because he has an uncanny ability to compose songs with catchy hooks.Each one of The Beatles brought something to the group so it's pretty well impossible to give one of them more or less credit than the others.

Posted

Consider yourself flamed. That's what Lennon was talking about when he called it granny music.

 

 

(Smile)....Well, to each his/her own. I've never been one to tell other's what they should or should not like, in genre, or style.

And, I make my own decision, in that regard, as well. I like what I like, regardless. A lot of music that other's just "live" for,

I can't abide. And, vice versa, I'm sure. No biggie!

 

Stroll on... [biggrin]

 

CB

Posted

Consider yourself flamed. That's what Lennon was talking about when he called it granny music.

 

I find it amusing that by 1980 John had become a house husband baking bread and making granny music about his domestic life. The same critics that ripped Paul all that decade for his "family ways" praised John.

Posted

Like any "quote" from Lennon, regarding Paul...one has to take it in context,

of not only the subject matter, but the time frame, and his propensity for

emotion driven sarcasm, as well. A lot of those quotes, were made when he and

Paul weren't really on speaking terms, for some time. So, take any of that,

with a "grain," just like you would, from any of us, here...if/when we act a

bit of a "twit," or have our knickers in a twist! [biggrin]

 

CB

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...