New topic
Printable| Author | Message |
Paul McCartney is a Punk! Hope the title grabbed some attention. Just got a question for anyone who cares to answer. Would Paul McCartney still have a record deal if not for the Beatles? It bugs me that he is held in such high regard. What exactly did he do outside the Beatles. Yes, he did churn out some decent pop tunes in the '70s. But his albums sucked! Why was he so great as a Beatle and so crappy as a solo artist. Was he out of great tunes when they broke up? | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
Who's next on your hitlist, John Lennon? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
VoicesCarry said: Who's next on your hitlist, John Lennon?
Read my next post. he, he, he | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Nah, I can't dedicate a whole post to that. Lennon recorded some good shit. Plastic Ono Band is an awesome album and very underrated. Ditto for Imagine. But he is overrated as a solo artist, in my opinion. I guess I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around how great they were as the Beatles and how far they fell afterword. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Come on, now. The great majority of the Beatles' songs (and hits) were co-written by Paul and John. And in the '70s (and some might argue the '80s), he recorded several really good songs with Wings.
He's obnoxious and certainly past his prime as a songwriter, but the man knew how to put a song together and perform it. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Anxiety said: Come on, now. The great majority of the Beatles' songs (and hits) were co-written by Paul and John. And in the '70s (and some might argue the '80s), he recorded several really good songs with Wings.
He's obnoxious and certainly past his prime as a songwriter, but the man knew how to put a song together and perform it. Didn't both Lennon and McCartney say that they basically wrote alone? I think it is a myth that they wrote most of their songs together. Certainly they probably had input into each others songs but I don't think they collaborated as much as we think they did. Certainly by the time of Rubber Soul it seems obvious that they basically stopped collaborating. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
i own 'pipes of peace' purely cause MJ's on 2 tracks on it. Mcartney was OK in the beatles, as a solo artist he sucks ass, always has. fuck him and his ex-high class hooker wife. (don't believe me? do some research!) |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Marrk said: i own 'pipes of peace' purely cause MJ's on 2 tracks on it. Mcartney was OK in the beatles, as a solo artist he sucks ass, always has. fuck him and his ex-high class hooker wife. (don't believe me? do some research!)
Worst offence was to get that no-talent moron to be a member of the Wings. Remember when Howard Stern isolated her off-key vocal tracks and horrible piano playing - and got a cease and desist order from Linda? Classic. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Marrk said: i own 'pipes of peace' purely cause MJ's on 2 tracks on it. Mcartney was OK in the beatles, as a solo artist he sucks ass, always has. fuck him and his ex-high class hooker wife. (don't believe me? do some research!)
Come on, man. Help me out. What's this high class hooker thing all about. Was she a pre GTO groupie back in the '60s? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
VoicesCarry said: Marrk said: i own 'pipes of peace' purely cause MJ's on 2 tracks on it. Mcartney was OK in the beatles, as a solo artist he sucks ass, always has. fuck him and his ex-high class hooker wife. (don't believe me? do some research!)
Worst offence was to get that no-talent moron to be a member of the Wings. Remember when Howard Stern isolated her off-key vocal tracks and horrible piano playing - and got a cease and desist order from Linda? Classic. i was talking about heather mills. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Marrk said: VoicesCarry said: Worst offence was to get that no-talent moron to be a member of the Wings. Remember when Howard Stern isolated her off-key vocal tracks and horrible piano playing - and got a cease and desist order from Linda? Classic. i was talking about heather mills. Lol, Linda was still annoying 
But yeah, Heather's a gold digger if there ever was one. Nice for Stella to know that her dad's banging someone her age. They must have a lot in common. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
VoicesCarry said: Marrk said: i was talking about heather mills. Lol, Linda was still annoying
But yeah, Heather's a gold digger if there ever was one. Nice for Stella to know that her dad's banging someone her age. They must have a lot in common. Linda Eastman/McCartney was an incredible photographer | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
rialb said: Marrk said: i own 'pipes of peace' purely cause MJ's on 2 tracks on it. Mcartney was OK in the beatles, as a solo artist he sucks ass, always has. fuck him and his ex-high class hooker wife. (don't believe me? do some research!)
Come on, man. Help me out. What's this high class hooker thing all about. Was she a pre GTO groupie back in the '60s? I know what you mean fella. I saw that documentary "The Real Heather Mills". But careful what you say Marrk, you never know who's lawyers are reading your comments | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
rialb said: Hope the title grabbed some attention. Just got a question for anyone who cares to answer. Would Paul McCartney still have a record deal if not for the Beatles? It bugs me that he is held in such high regard. What exactly did he do outside the Beatles. Yes, he did churn out some decent pop tunes in the '70s. But his albums sucked! Why was he so great as a Beatle and so crappy as a solo artist. Was he out of great tunes when they broke up?
If u didnt dig his solo music, then u didnt dig it.. simple is that.. The quality of his music never decreased, most just had high expectations for him to continue to sound like beatle material. Heaven forbid anyone trying new things.. like the beatles did.. Paul is a true artist, its obvious by the risks he takes with his music.. and the 80's are the proof. Sure the stuff wasnt very good, but it was a attempt just like the rest of his music, and for the majority, he is a major trend setter in pop culture. But what u must understand about the "writing methods" that john and paul did when they were in the group, is they fed off of eachothers songs.. If paul wrote a brillaint song, john would have one the next day.. and so on. It doesnt matter if they wrote alone or not, there was a bit of "jealosy" that pushed them further than one would normally go.. and thats how the two amazing songwriters got to where they are at today. Clearly paul never lost any of his talent, he wanted to cover new grounds.. just like ure idol prince does.. "Somedays" by mccartney is one of the most accomplished songs he has ever written since being a beatle.. and that was in the late 90's. of course thats an opinion, but when you analyze the song and how it was created, its a clear fact that he never lost any brialliance as a song writer. [This message was edited Fri Mar 26 19:07:41 2004 by Sdldawn] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Sdldawn said: rialb said: Hope the title grabbed some attention. Just got a question for anyone who cares to answer. Would Paul McCartney still have a record deal if not for the Beatles? It bugs me that he is held in such high regard. What exactly did he do outside the Beatles. Yes, he did churn out some decent pop tunes in the '70s. But his albums sucked! Why was he so great as a Beatle and so crappy as a solo artist. Was he out of great tunes when they broke up?
If u didnt dig his solo music, then u didnt dig it.. simple is that.. The quality of his music never decreased, most just had high expectations for him to continue to sound like beatle material. Heaven forbid anyone trying new things.. like the beatles did.. Paul is a true artist, its obvious by the risks he takes with his music.. and the 80's are the proof. Sure the stuff wasnt very good, but it was a attempt just like the rest of his music, and for the majority, he is a major trend setter in pop culture. But what u must understand about the "writing methods" that john and paul did when they were in the group, is they fed off of eachothers songs.. If paul wrote a brillaint song, john would have one the next day.. and so on. It doesnt matter if they wrote alone or not, there was a bit of "jealosy" that pushed them further than one would normally go.. and thats how the two amazing songwriters got to where they are at today. Clearly paul never lost any of his talent, he wanted to cover new grounds.. just like ure idol prince does.. "Somedays" by mccartney is one of the most accomplished songs he has ever written since being a beatle.. and that was in the late 90's. of course thats an opinion, but when you analyze the song and how it was created, its a clear fact that he never lost any brialliance as a song writer. [This message was edited Fri Mar 26 19:07:41 2004 by Sdldawn] I must say your points about the competition between Lennon and McCartney during their time in the Beatles is bang on. Very good point. But I think it is wrong to say that the quality of McCartney's music never decreased. I can't claim to have heard every McCartney album but I own most of his 70's albums and to my ears there is a definite dip from the Beatle days. Basically, in my opinion, the Wings albums had maybe 2 good-great singles and that was it. Look at an album like Wild Life. Anything great on that one? Of course you could make the point that he was releasing too much music. When he was a Beatle he only had to come up with less than half of the songs. But to say that the quality of his music never decreased... that's just not true. Just my opinion, but I'm sure many would agree. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Live and Let Die kicks ass. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Anxiety said: Live and Let Die kicks ass.
True. Great song. Guns 'n Roses should have left it alone. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I wouldn't say McCartney was the most consistent artist from the 70s on, but at least half of his stuff has been brilliant. And I'm talking about full albums, not just singles. Albums like Red Rose Speedway, Band on the Run, Venus and Mars, Wings at the Speed of Sound, Back to the Egg, Flaming Pie, and Driving Rain can't be denied, imo. He's had some duds, it's true- London Town, McCartney II, and Pipes of Peace were all disappointing to my ears. But if anything, I think he's quite underappreciated.
I'll take his solo/Wings works over any John Lennon's solo work anyday. Hell, a couple of the Wings albums were better than most Beatles albums. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
rialb said: Sdldawn said: If u didnt dig his solo music, then u didnt dig it.. simple is that.. The quality of his music never decreased, most just had high expectations for him to continue to sound like beatle material. Heaven forbid anyone trying new things.. like the beatles did.. Paul is a true artist, its obvious by the risks he takes with his music.. and the 80's are the proof. Sure the stuff wasnt very good, but it was a attempt just like the rest of his music, and for the majority, he is a major trend setter in pop culture. But what u must understand about the "writing methods" that john and paul did when they were in the group, is they fed off of eachothers songs.. If paul wrote a brillaint song, john would have one the next day.. and so on. It doesnt matter if they wrote alone or not, there was a bit of "jealosy" that pushed them further than one would normally go.. and thats how the two amazing songwriters got to where they are at today. Clearly paul never lost any of his talent, he wanted to cover new grounds.. just like ure idol prince does.. "Somedays" by mccartney is one of the most accomplished songs he has ever written since being a beatle.. and that was in the late 90's. of course thats an opinion, but when you analyze the song and how it was created, its a clear fact that he never lost any brialliance as a song writer. [This message was edited Fri Mar 26 19:07:41 2004 by Sdldawn] I must say your points about the competition between Lennon and McCartney during their time in the Beatles is bang on. Very good point. But I think it is wrong to say that the quality of McCartney's music never decreased. I can't claim to have heard every McCartney album but I own most of his 70's albums and to my ears there is a definite dip from the Beatle days. Basically, in my opinion, the Wings albums had maybe 2 good-great singles and that was it. Look at an album like Wild Life. Anything great on that one? Of course you could make the point that he was releasing too much music. When he was a Beatle he only had to come up with less than half of the songs. But to say that the quality of his music never decreased... that's just not true. Just my opinion, but I'm sure many would agree. Well I can also agree with you.. but I also had the same idea about his 70's music, but just like all the great albums I own, It gradually took me over, and I appreciated it more than I could have imagined before.. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Pauls first 4 or so solo albums were pretty much ok, but then he started to write some seriously crappy poppy 2nd rate garbage. There were always some good songs, but I really dislike many of his later wings and solo stuff.
Recently, his last three or so albums, he has really started to create some good stuff again. Flaming Pie was a good album. Lennon' s plastic ono band, Imagine and double fantasy are awesome. Mind games is good. I did not like windows and ladders (is that what it is called? the one with whatever gets you through the night.). Live in New York City sucks bigtime. I think lennon had the more quality output than McCartney. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Paul McCartney has written a lot of great stuff after the Beatles, and even after the Wings... This man is performing for 40 years, ofcourse there are sdome weak things, but fact is that the combination with John Lennon was of a higher level. But Paul is still a great singer songwriter..... Maybe you should watch the Back in the world DVD..... and listen to the cd Flaming Pie..... one full album from a few years ago, with only great NEW songs on it!!
and let me know what you think of these..... 
 the beautiful ones, you always seem to loose | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
rialb said: Marrk said: i own 'pipes of peace' purely cause MJ's on 2 tracks on it. Mcartney was OK in the beatles, as a solo artist he sucks ass, always has. fuck him and his ex-high class hooker wife. (don't believe me? do some research!)
Come on, man. Help me out. What's this high class hooker thing all about. Was she a pre GTO groupie back in the '60s?  "I saw a woman with major Hammer pants on the subway a few weeks ago and totally thought of you." - sextonseven | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Paul McCartney is an immensely talented melodist, a very adventurous producer, AND one of the first do-it-all-yerself artists, playing all kinds of instruments (and engineering), when Prince was still doing pre-algebra in junior high school. Pick up McCartney's first solo CD, "McCartney", go see him live, and you might change your mind. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
noflashagain said: Paul McCartney is an immensely talented melodist, a very adventurous producer, AND one of the first do-it-all-yerself artists, playing all kinds of instruments (and engineering), when Prince was still doing pre-algebra in junior high school. Pick up McCartney's first solo CD, "McCartney", go see him live, and you might change your mind.
The "McCartney" album is one of my favorite albums of all time. Sure its a pushed production after the beatles of paul doing everything. but it sounds brilliant, its simple yet complex and I love every single song.. its weird, sweet, bluesy, jammin, and experimental. Its aging lovley by the way.. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
rialb said: Anxiety said: Live and Let Die kicks ass.
True. Great song. Guns 'n Roses should have left it alone. co-sign.I was thinking the same thing when I recently saw the Bond movie "Live and let die".What a cool song that is!!!! /peace Manki | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I actually like him more and more the older I get
He's seriously rich and one of the most famous people and there was a guy on the npgmusicclub boards who sat next to him on the train the other week and he was friendly as anything. Can you imagine Prince chatting with average joe on the train ? His contribution to music has been ridiculously great, c'mon I feel kinda sorry for him having to live up to the Beatles legacy but even his solo work has been incredibly successful...commercially anyway | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Paul McCartney has consistently written brilliant songs from the 60's until now. The only difference is that in the 60's, the Beatle released an album + per year, and shared the songwriting burden between 4 (ok 3.....erm ok 2) of them. When they broke up in 1970, Paul was the only one who still released an album, plus non album singles & b-sides, every year.
None of the Beatles every came close to reaching the standards set by a Beatles album. Every member had a stand out reocrd, George has All Things Must Pass, John had Plastic Ono Band, and Paul had Band On The Run. That doesnt mean to say that none of his other albums weren't any good. He also composed Maybe Im Amazed, his best song ever IMO. Its a common myth that Paul has written nothing good since the Beatles, and its perpetuated by people who cant be bothered to take the time to explore his solo work. I think its lazy and disrespectful to a man who has contributed so much great music to the world over the years. He may act like a bit of a prick sometimes, but at least hes down to earth. Not all billionaires can say that. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Pauls' 70s work with Wings is always criticized,but I like alot of these songs...
"Jet" "Live And Let Die" "My Love" "Listen To The What The Man Said" "Goodnight Tonight" "Silly Love Songs" "Band On The Run" "With A Little Luck" "Let Em In" "Girlfriend" (covered by MJ on 'Off The Wall') "Coming Out" It may not be as innovative as the Beatles material,but those are some solid singles. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Come on.
McCartney has written great songs post-Beatles. So did Lennon but both wrote their fair share of shit too. Half the stuff on Band on the Run could have slipped into a Beatles album no probs. And i'd second all of the songs DavidEye mentions too. There's also loads of good tunes on Flaming Pie. Lennon was great at times solo wise, but Mind Games is a bag of steaming horse maneure. Paul ain't no punk. The man's a legend and has written better hooks & melodies than pretty much anybody else over the last 35+ years. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Maybe I was a little harsh. And I'm very glad, and somewhat surprised, that I received no death threats. But few of you responded to my question. Based on his solo work would Paul McCartney still have a record deal. Personally I think he would have been dropped by the late '80s.
I have heard most of his albums. And I love his first two. And I agree that Flaming Pie and Driving Rain are pretty great. But, I still maintain that if he wasn't a former Beatle he would not still be recording. And do some of you really think he was a consistant album artist? Of course it's all based on opinion but I think he was very inconsistent. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |