Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
7.45pm
28 March 2012
Offline
Assume for the sake of argument that McCartney deserves the preponderance of song-writing credit for 4-6 songs per Beatles album, depending on the album. Of these, I’d suggest that around 3-5 songs per album are really quite strong. I’d make the same judgment about Lennon; he contributed 4-6 songs per album, about which 3-5 songs were fabulous. George contributed between 1-3 first-rate songs per album. The Beatles could afford to screen out weaker material because the albums were genuinely collaborative. They had three genius song-writers; no one needed to shoulder the whole burden. They could be picky.
Well, so what?
Well what that means is that when the former Beatles produced their own solo albums, they each suddenly had to start producing 9-11 great (Beatles-quality) songs per album, not the usual 3-5 songs, if they hoped their solo work to escape negative comparisons with The Beatles.
Absolutely predictably, none of the former Beatles could sustain a rate of producing 9-11 Beatles-quality songs per album. Perfectly good albums by any fair standards were judged lacking. Double Fantasy, a terrific album, was savaged. Without exception, critics eventually claimed that each of the principle song-writers of The Beatles somehow lost their song-writing genius.
Here’s the main reason why that claim iis unfair: NONE of the Beatles EVER had had the capacity on their own to produce 9-11 Beatles-quality songs per album even when they were with The Beatles!
Average or ordinary songs that would have been vetoed by The Beatles suddenly had to be included to complete solo albums. This means that taken at the album level, few of the Post-Beatles work compares to The Beatles.
We all have our favorite post-Beatles albums--and I love many of them in their own right—but in my opinion only three post-Beatles albums do not suffer in comparison to any randomly chosen Beatles album.
- McCartney’s Ram
- Lennon’s John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band
- Harrison’s All Things Must Pass
John’s early excellent post-Beatles work bought him some capital with the critics, but he couldn’t quite sustain the same quality of albums and in time critics began to turn on him as well. His tragic death stopped the critics’ ever-slipping (and unfair) evaluations of his albums.
Harrison’s huge outburst of creativity with ATMP in the immediate aftermath of The Beatles split surprised the world, but essentially that album was a collection of Beatles-quality tunes that had unfairly been denied placement on Beatles albums. Over time when this stock of songs was used up, his solo albums began to reflect what we might expect based on his earlier contributions with The Beatles: 2-3 great songs and a bunch of decent but less compelling music.
It is Paul, I think, who has suffered the most unfair comparisons to his earlier career with The Beatles. The truth is that McCartney's post-Beatles catalogue has evolved into an enormously impressive collection of excellent songs. The variety of really fine songs is nothing short of astounding. When one takes into account his experimental music, his singles and B-sides, one finds that Sir Paul has for decades continued to produce fine music at an astonishing rate. Maybe not at exactly the rate as during his Beatles years, but any decline is wildly overestimated. If I were forced to issue a collection of Paul’s best post-Beatles work (and not just his best-charting), I’d be very hard pressed to fit my favorite songs onto a three-CD album. And that, to me, is pretty freakin’ amazing testimony to his ongoing Post-Beatles creativity.
None of this is to deny that some of Paul songs are simply bad. Cringe-worthy. I fear that Wonderful Christmas Time and Spies Like Us make the universe a less hospitable place. But the sum accumulation of his good work—from the sublime to the good to the merely pleasant—is worthy of celebration. And of recognition. It is decidedly NOT worthy of snarky and dismissive criticism.
I believe that when we judge song-writers, we ought to judge them by their total number of positive contributions. And many acts get this benefit of doubt from critics. When critics speak of other great acts such as Elton John or David Bowie or Radiohead or Paul Simon or even Bob Dylan, they do not define these acts by their own healthy share of clunkers. They instead typically quite correctly focus on all of the fabulous music these acts have produced despite the inevitable subpar songs. Not when evaluating this album or that. But when evaluating those musical acts themselves.
So what say you? Am I misunderstanding how other musicians are judged? Did all The Beatles suffer a massive and sudden decline of talent? Is Paul’s work a tad unfairly judged for not consistently producing an impossible standard that is expected of no other living musician?
9.48pm
1 May 2011
Online
*I had a long reply written and then lost it. Im not pleased.*
10.51pm
7 April 2012
Offline
I totally agree. Paul suffered unfair criticism from critics and musicians after the Beatles break up. The reasons were clear:
His love for love songs with love lyrics
; Due to a campaing promoted by Lennon and the press saying that he was the main reason behind the end of the band. They accused Paul of selfish behaviour in the recording process.
The music reviews of that period were not reviewing Paul's music, but him as a person.
2.42am
28 March 2012
Offline
mean-m-m: oh, that's so frustrating. ugh. sorry, friend. i'd still love to hear your thoughts even if in abreviated form.
10.08pm
4 December 2010
Offline
Michael B said
When critics speak of other great acts such as Elton John or David Bowie or Radiohead or Paul Simon or even Bob Dylan, they do not define these acts by their own healthy share of clunkers. They instead typically quite correctly focus on all of the fabulous music these acts have produced despite the inevitable subpar songs. Not when evaluating this album or that. But when evaluating those musical acts themselves.
So what say you? Am I misunderstanding how other musicians are judged? Did all The Beatles suffer a massive and sudden decline of talent? Is Paul’s work a tad unfairly judged for not consistently producing an impossible standard that is expected of no other living musician?
Bowie and Dylan were panned in the later stages of their careers (mid 80s-mid 90s), and those two reached similar peaks to the Beatles. Radiohead's recent output has also been criticised by significant sections of the music press and even the fans.
I'm not as well versed in Paul's solo career as John's, but I do own a copy of Wingspan. Frankly I think there's very little of merit on there, songs like My Love, C Moon, Junior's Farm, Another Day and The Back Seat Of My Car should not be appearing on greatest hits collections. There's a lot of forgettable tracks, then some good ones like Admiral Halsey, Bluebird, Too Many People and Man We Was Lonely. I also like Band On The Run, Live And Let Die and Jet. The only really exceptional track is Maybe I'm Amazed.
Paul has had a late-career rediscovery of his touch, just like John, George, Dylan and Bowie. However, I don't think his early solo stuff and his Wings career represented a dramatic decline from the late Beatle days. His contributions in 67 were generally fairly weak (fortunately that was balanced out by John peaking higher than any other songwriter peaked before or since that year), though there were exceptions. In '68 he wrote Hey Jude, Mother Nature's Son, I Will and Blackbird, as well as Helter Skelter and Back In The USSR, but the latter two received a lot of help from the other Beatles. He contributed a good number of excellent songs to the Get Back sessions, but he also contributed a load of rubbish. On Abbey Road, the medley is his main contribution and probably the best thing he ever did. Anyway, I think Paul's contributions to Sgt. Pepper, MMT, The White Album and Get Back/Let It Be are roughly on the same level as his early solo stuff, a few gems but a lot of poor songs.
John IMO had an excellent solo career. Plastic Ono Band is a classic, Imagine is too, and I really like Mind Games. Some Time is a bit too political and sometimes feels forced, it isn't a Beatles quality album at all. Walls And Bridges was a creative low. Put the John songs on Double Fantasy and Milk And Honey on one album and you have another excellent album. Three excellent albums, a good album (Mind Games), and two poor albums. Independent of the Beatles, John is one of my favourite artists.
George, well All Things Must Pass is an explosion of creativity and would have been a fitting follow up to Abbey Road if the Beatles were still together (other than the lack of other Beatles). I don't own any of the albums he made over the next ten years or so, but it seems like he had the same problem as Paul, a few gems but an awful lot of filler, which is your analysis too as far as I can tell. Cloud Nine and (from what I've heard) Brainwashed seem to be a bit of a late resurgence from him though.
No comment on Ringo.
1.43pm
26 March 2012
Offline
I think this is a very interesting topic, and it regards something which has always interested me.
The reason the Beatles' solo careers were not as great as the work they collaboratively produced is because they were all human beings. The more brilliant an artist's work is, the harder they will fall when they go wrong. Huge talents balance very finely with huge flaws. For instance George showed a great talent for writing yearning, spiritual songs but when pushed too hard this could result in a very preachy, condescending attitude. Paul was a fantastic melodicist and could seemingly write a catchy no.1 single in about half an hour, but rarely employed enough deep feeling to make a song resonate artistically. John could write complex, clever and interesting lyrics, and the songs came from his very soul, but it seems he could rarely be bothered to polish off the rough edges and add an element of commercialism which was needed.
The lucky thing was, in the Beatles, all three of them had each other (and Ringo's opinion) to add the necessary component and balance these songs out so that they were all of a strong quality. This applies particularly to the Lennon-McCartney songwriting partnership.
I do think Paul received an unfair amount of flak during and after the Beatles' breakup. Between 1968-1970, I'd say he was practically unsurpassed as a songwriter and although the Beatles being his "backing band" added a lot to those songs, he was certainly at the top of his game rolling this kind of work out. "Hey Jude," "Blackbird", "Let It Be", the Abbey Road medley, "Maybe I'm Amazed" and any other of your favourite McCartney songs you want to pick from that period. But this was overshadowed very quickly by the bad press the other Beatles gave him, the general public feeling that it was he who broke up the Beatles, and his somewhat strange choice in releasing a debut solo album that did not reflect his ultimate skill as a top writer and producer of polished songs but a low-key, acoustic affair. All of this led to a large degree of spite from the critics (some of it very unfair if you ask me- how could they savage the eccentric but obviously meticulously made and boundlessly creative Ram on release? Even Ringo said "there wasn't a single tune on that album," which prompts me to ask which album he was listening to) and I don't think Paul's career ever really recovered from that critical drubbing. John's death didn't help matters, because now John has been turned into a saintly genius, a towering figurehead of peace, art and the undisputed leader of the Beatles, whereas Paul is just the "other one" who's still hanging around writing soppy pop songs. Nobody really seems to take into account that McCartney led the Beatles through admittedly their finest years of work, and nobody is willing to burrow into his solo discography to find that he has written a good few songs which if released with the Beatles would have been considered instant classics.
I feel that John's solo career got off to a good start because at the time of Plastic Ono Band, nobody had heard something so raw, brutal and confessional in pop music. Punk was still a long way away. The minimal, rough-hewn production and the idea of the album as therapy forced people to sit up and take notice; plus, as the most controversial and "news-worthy" Beatle, people were waiting to see what John had to say on the subject of the Beatles breaking up. And they got what they wanted- the numbing emotional breakdown of "Mother" and the blunt but beautifully written statements of "God", denouncing the former life of the Beatles with no metaphor or anything. This is why, in my eyes and those of many others, Plastic Ono Band is one of the finest albums of all time. "Instant Karma" and "Cold Turkey" helped to bolster this new stripped down style of music that John was pioneering. Then to follow up, John was lucky; he pulled it out of the bag with "Imagine", and had "Jealous Guy" to use from the Beatles days. Those in my eyes are the only two truly fine songs on the album Imagine, but they seem to have been enough to propel it to classic status. After that, the flaws began to show; the confessional, raw thing couldn't be kept afloat, punk did what he had already done in a bigger way, and John's work became too political and never really succeeded when he tried to polish it up (see Walls and Bridges).
As for George, it seems he spent all of his creative energy on All Things Must Pass partly in an attempt to snub Lennon and McCartney. ATMP is a splendid album, but I feel that George was very unwise in throwing everything he had into the 23-song set. If he had released a single LP in 1970 with some of ATMP's best songs on it, and picked his material wisely, he still would have had plenty of very fine material left for the next album, and perhaps even the next. As it was, he successfully showed the critics that he was as good as his former bandmates with the colossal effort of ATMP and then fizzled out really quite quickly. I have never liked any of George's work from Living In The Material World onwards; there are occasional standouts but the majority of it is very preachy, overproduced and often moody and contemptuous. Plus we have to bear in mind that a lot of the songs on ATMP were written and some partly rehearsed when George was in the Beatles and probably received some advice and tweaking from John and Paul.
Imagine if the Beatles had gathered their assembled forces one last time instead of holding back work for their solo careers and released an album in 1971 with the other material they had. On that album would have been (hypothetically): "My Sweet Lord", "All Things Must Pass", "Imagine", "Instant Karma", "Gimme Some Truth", "Jealous Guy", "Junk", "Maybe I'm Amazed", "Another Day", "Back Seat of My Car". Most of these songs were rehearsed at Twickenham. With George Martin's production and the Beatles all playing on it, this could maybe even have been their best record yet.
4.11pm
12 March 2010
Offline
The Walrus said
I'm not as well versed in Paul's solo career as John's, but I do own a copy of Wingspan. Frankly I think there's very little of merit on there, songs like My Love, C Moon, Junior's Farm, Another Day and The Back Seat Of My Car should not be appearing on greatest hits collections. There's a lot of forgettable tracks, then some good ones like Admiral Halsey, Bluebird, Too Many People and Man We Was Lonely. I also like Band On The Run, Live And Let Die and Jet. The only really exceptional track is Maybe I'm Amazed.
Paul has had a late-career rediscovery of his touch, just like John, George, Dylan and Bowie. However, I don't think his early solo stuff and his Wings career represented a dramatic decline from the late Beatle days. His contributions in 67 were generally fairly weak (fortunately that was balanced out by John peaking higher than any other songwriter peaked before or since that year), though there were exceptions. In '68 he wrote Hey Jude, Mother Nature's Son, I Will and Blackbird, as well as Helter Skelter and Back In The USSR, but the latter two received a lot of help from the other Beatles. He contributed a good number of excellent songs to the Get Back sessions, but he also contributed a load of rubbish. On Abbey Road, the medley is his main contribution and probably the best thing he ever did. Anyway, I think Paul's contributions to Sgt. Pepper, MMT, The White Album and Get Back/Let It Be are roughly on the same level as his early solo stuff, a few gems but a lot of poor songs.
John IMO had an excellent solo career.
See, this is the stuff that gets thrown at Macca on a regular basis…
I won't comment on it any further, it just makes me angry.
To each his own (still funny how someone would think of "My love" or "Back seat of my car" as forgettable while calling "Man we was lonely" a good song…).
Nothing wrong with different opinions and serious discussions, but how can you take someone seriously who claims that 67 Paul was generally "weak" – while he was the driving force of the best band in the world and made about 80% of one of the most important, acclaimed, creative, successful albums of all time…
4.35pm
12 March 2010
Offline
Ben Ramon said .
Paul was a fantastic melodicist and could seemingly write a catchy no.1 single in about half an hour, but rarely employed enough deep feeling to make a song resonate artistically.
Disagree on that one. He just never was as heay on drugs or insecure or desperate as John, he was always the positive, optimistic one. People keep confusing this with having "no deep feelings"…
Just listen to "Yesterday" and tell me his voice is not touching you. Endless other examples…
I do think Paul received an unfair amount of flak during and after the Beatles' breakup. Between 1968-1970, I'd say he was practically unsurpassed as a songwriter and although the Beatles being his "backing band" added a lot to those songs, he was certainly at the top of his game rolling this kind of work out. "Hey Jude," "Blackbird", "Let It Be", the Abbey Road medley, "Maybe I'm Amazed" and any other of your favourite McCartney songs you want to pick from that period. But this was overshadowed very quickly by the bad press the other Beatles gave him, the general public feeling that it was he who broke up the Beatles, and his somewhat strange choice in releasing a debut solo album that did not reflect his ultimate skill as a top writer and producer of polished songs but a low-key, acoustic affair. All of this led to a large degree of spite from the critics (some of it very unfair if you ask me- how could they savage the eccentric but obviously meticulously made and boundlessly creative Ram on release? Even Ringo said "there wasn't a single tune on that album," which prompts me to ask which album he was listening to) and I don't think Paul's career ever really recovered from that critical drubbing.
Luckily he got his redemption with BOTR, one of the most hailed albums ever. So his career wasn't nearly as bad as some people make or see it.
He had massive success with the Wings tour, most consecutive Nr. 1 singles a year (only beat by Lionel Richie in the 80s), platinum album after platinum album, being one of the best selling artists of the 70s (behind Elton John).
Even in 1984 he was blazing hot and was supposed to give Michael Jackson's Thriller a boost by co-singing a number.
He then killed almost all his critical acclaim with Give my regards to Broad Street – while the album was still a massive success.
He then killed almost all his chart appeal with Press to play, which is unfairly overlooked imo.
He partly recovered with Flowers in the dirt and his massive World tour and had some late bloomers, Chaos and Creation in the backyard being his finest album ever, imo, gaining more grammys and respect as he gets older and keeps going and going.
He also gets more and more respect for his experimental stuff like the "Fireman", his painting, his orchestral stuff etc.
He made a true and fine Jazz album, something many other pop acts tried and more or less failed.
He also keeps people happy by still doing three hour best of live shows while going close to 70.
So, apart from a low between 1985-1989 his career has always been extremely successful, and many of the early flaws in the public reception of his early solo work have been rebuked.
Not all his albums were successful artistically, but there are very few who disappoint more than they entertain (Wings at the Speed of sound for me and Red Rose Speedway for me, and even these albums are hailed and loved by many! Wings Wild Life being another, as is Broad Street).
John's death didn't help matters, because now John has been turned into a saintly genius, a towering figurehead of peace, art and the undisputed leader of the Beatles, whereas Paul is just the "other one" who's still hanging around writing soppy pop songs. Nobody really seems to take into account that McCartney led the Beatles through admittedly their finest years of work, and nobody is willing to burrow into his solo discography to find that he has written a good few songs which if released with the Beatles would have been considered instant classics.
I feel that John's solo career got off to a good start because at the time of Plastic Ono Band, nobody had heard something so raw, brutal and confessional in pop music. Punk was still a long way away. The minimal, rough-hewn production and the idea of the album as therapy forced people to sit up and take notice; plus, as the most controversial and "news-worthy" Beatle, people were waiting to see what John had to say on the subject of the Beatles breaking up. And they got what they wanted- the numbing emotional breakdown of "Mother" and the blunt but beautifully written statements of "God", denouncing the former life of the Beatles with no metaphor or anything. This is why, in my eyes and those of many others, Plastic Ono Band is one of the finest albums of all time. "Instant Karma" and "Cold Turkey" helped to bolster this new stripped down style of music that John was pioneering. Then to follow up, John was lucky; he pulled it out of the bag with "Imagine", and had "Jealous Guy" to use from the Beatles days. Those in my eyes are the only two truly fine songs on the album Imagine, but they seem to have been enough to propel it to classic status. After that, the flaws began to show; the confessional, raw thing couldn't be kept afloat, punk did what he had already done in a bigger way, and John's work became too political and never really succeeded when he tried to polish it up (see Walls and Bridges).
As for George, it seems he spent all of his creative energy on All Things Must Pass partly in an attempt to snub Lennon and McCartney. ATMP is a splendid album, but I feel that George was very unwise in throwing everything he had into the 23-song set. If he had released a single LP in 1970 with some of ATMP's best songs on it, and picked his material wisely, he still would have had plenty of very fine material left for the next album, and perhaps even the next. As it was, he successfully showed the critics that he was as good as his former bandmates with the colossal effort of ATMP and then fizzled out really quite quickly. I have never liked any of George's work from Living In The Material World onwards; there are occasional standouts but the majority of it is very preachy, overproduced and often moody and contemptuous. Plus we have to bear in mind that a lot of the songs on ATMP were written and some partly rehearsed when George was in the Beatles and probably received some advice and tweaking from John and Paul.
Imagine if the Beatles had gathered their assembled forces one last time instead of holding back work for their solo careers and released an album in 1971 with the other material they had. On that album would have been (hypothetically): "My Sweet Lord", "All Things Must Pass", "Imagine", "Instant Karma", "Gimme Some Truth", "Jealous Guy", "Junk", "Maybe I'm Amazed", "Another Day", "Back Seat of My Car". Most of these songs were rehearsed at Twickenham. With George Martin's production and the Beatles all playing on it, this could maybe even have been their best record yet.
Agree with almost everything here.
4.40pm
14 April 2010
Offline
Michael B said
I believe that when we judge song-writers, we ought to judge them by their total number of positive contributions.
One's contributions being seen as positve or negative is so subjective – read on.
Did all The Beatles suffer a massive and sudden decline of talent?
Absolutely not. It was more like a change in their thinking either collectively or individually. This was going on even when they were together. When they stopped writing things like "She Loves You" and started writing things like "Strawberry Fields Forever", there were some who felt they were on their way out. There were others who felt just the opposite. Was that a sudden decline in talent? Nope. But, if somebody did not like what they had to say, it was criticized. Even in this very thread there have been words written like genius, brilliant, creative, etc… Then there are words like weak, moody, flaws. Really? If you like a song, (insert Beatle name here) is brilliant, but if you don't he has flaws? Give me a break. My point is, I don't feel we need to reevaluate anyone's career – we need to just live and let live. Talent is talent…whether one likes it or not.
Even now, half of you reading this are saying, "yeah he's right". The other half are saying, "what an idiot". No matter which way you think, you are right…
To the fountain of perpetual mirth, Let it roll for all its worth.
2295 6972
5.27pm
20 December 2010
Offline
As for George, it seems he spent all of his creative energy on All Things Must Pass partly in an attempt to snub Lennon and McCartney. ATMP is a splendid album, but I feel that George was very unwise in throwing everything he had into the 23-song set. If he had released a single LP in 1970 with some of ATMP's best songs on it, and picked his material wisely, he still would have had plenty of very fine material left for the next album, and perhaps even the next. As it was, he successfully showed the critics that he was as good as his former bandmates with the colossal effort of ATMP and then fizzled out really quite quickly. I have never liked any of George's work from Living In The Material World onwards; there are occasional standouts but the majority of it is very preachy, overproduced and often moody and contemptuous. Plus we have to bear in mind that a lot of the songs on ATMP were written and some partly rehearsed when George was in the Beatles and probably received some advice and tweaking from John and Paul.
Keep in mind that this is all opinions and though I do agree ATMP should not have been a three record set, he wrote a lot of great songs throughout his solo career. As far as his songs being preachy, he always wrote what he felt inside and spoke the truth to what he believed in. Any artist that does not what I like to call 'play the game' is always going to be up for major criticism. George did not care if his albums sold nor did he care what people thought. A true artist to me is someone who is true to themselves. You will not find too many artists if any, who will say any negative comments about Harrison. For me, they were all fantastic but George as I read in a magazine once that referred to him as 'The Beautiful One' will always I feel have an impact in musical history for his passion, kindness and staying true to himself.
6.09pm
10 August 2011
Offline
This thread fits in well with the "Best Post-Beatles McCartney songs" thread:
Even those who agree that McCartney wrote some great stuff after the Beatles can't agree on what that great stuff is.
His syrupy hits of the 70s are most divisive.
We all agree that if McCartney simply took the 3-4 best songs of each album, he'd be in Beatle-land.
But which 3-4 songs???
Can the same be said for Lennon or Harrison?
6.56pm
26 March 2012
Offline
paulsbass said
Ben Ramon said .
Paul was a fantastic melodicist and could seemingly write a catchy no.1 single in about half an hour, but rarely employed enough deep feeling to make a song resonate artistically.
Disagree on that one. He just never was as heay on drugs or insecure or desperate as John, he was always the positive, optimistic one. People keep confusing this with having "no deep feelings"…
Just listen to "Yesterday" and tell me his voice is not touching you. Endless other examples…
I never said "Paul has no deep feelings." John clearly writes about his emotions more baldly, which makes people go "wow what an incredible confessional artist!" 90% of the time, with Paul, who knows what he's feeling when he writes his songs? Can you imagine him writing "yes I'm lonely, wanna die?" I think the closest thing Paul has to a really angry completely confessional screaming John song is probably "Oh Woman Oh Why", and even then he uses the hypothetical situation of an argument between lovers that ends in murder, rather than singing directly about what he feels. He prefers to use external characters, third-person stories, wordplay and general hooks to get his message across. Obviously there are exceptions, and Paul's music still touches me emotionally a lot of the time, but it's quite obvious that what I said is largely the case, especially when compared to John. And people compare John and Paul a LOT.
Inner Light said
Keep in mind that this is all opinions and though I do agree ATMP should not have been a three record set, he wrote a lot of great songs throughout his solo career. As far as his songs being preachy, he always wrote what he felt inside and spoke the truth to what he believed in. Any artist that does not what I like to call 'play the game' is always going to be up for major criticism. George did not care if his albums sold nor did he care what people thought. A true artist to me is someone who is true to themselves. You will not find too many artists if any, who will say any negative comments about Harrison. For me, they were all fantastic but George as I read in a magazine once that referred to him as 'The Beautiful One' will always I feel have an impact in musical history for his passion, kindness and staying true to himself.
Don't get me wrong, I love and respect George hugely, I'm just very indifferent to a lot of his solo career. If it does wonders for you, or anybody else, then that makes me happy and I wish that I could feel the same! 
As for the songs by Paul that I feel genuinely stand up to his work with the Beatles, I could probably shortlist fifteen or so songs, among them Fine Line, Maybe I'm Amazed, Band on the Run, Jet, Nineteen Hundred and Eighty Five, Tomorrow, Little Lamb Dragonfly, Daytime Nighttime Suffering, Love In Song, Dear Boy, Wanderlust, Here Today and Another Day.
11.08pm
12 March 2010
Offline
Ben Ramon said
paulsbass said
Ben Ramon said .
Paul was a fantastic melodicist and could seemingly write a catchy no.1 single in about half an hour, but rarely employed enough deep feeling to make a song resonate artistically.
I never said "Paul has no deep feelings."
Obviously there are exceptions, and Paul's music still touches me emotionally a lot of the time, but it's quite obvious that what I said is largely the case, especially when compared to John. And people compare John and Paul a LOT.
We can all read what you said. Still disagree. And obviously if a song touches you or not is quite subjective.
Many name "Silly love songs" as one of the, well, silliest songs ever written.
It still touches me. It's honest, it's true, it's fun, it's very well sung and arranged, and it's about love. Very romantic.
If what you say is largely the case for YOU, that's fine.
Just don't try making it an objective truth.
11.10pm
12 March 2010
Offline
Ben Ramon said
As for the songs by Paul that I feel genuinely stand up to his work with the Beatles, I could probably shortlist fifteen or so songs, among them Fine Line, Maybe I'm Amazed, Band on the Run, Jet, Nineteen Hundred and Eighty Five, Tomorrow, Little Lamb Dragonfly, Daytime Nighttime Suffering, Love In Song, Dear Boy, Wanderlust, Here Today and Another Day.
I can agree on most of this list.
And could name about 60 more without much thinking.
1.17am
1 May 2011
Online
Paul had a career low in the mid 80's and i cant see him being desperate to reissue either the Broad Street film or lp but his work is underrated when properly assessed. Unfortunately a lot of people listen to the greatest hits, a few of the more known albums (mainly Wings) and sum everything up based on those and preformed opinions.
Yes not every song on the best albums are great but then who has? A lot of people would say even the beatles failed in that.
3.01pm
26 March 2012
Offline
paulsbass said
Ben Ramon said
paulsbass said
Ben Ramon said .
Paul was a fantastic melodicist and could seemingly write a catchy no.1 single in about half an hour, but rarely employed enough deep feeling to make a song resonate artistically.
I never said "Paul has no deep feelings."
Obviously there are exceptions, and Paul's music still touches me emotionally a lot of the time, but it's quite obvious that what I said is largely the case, especially when compared to John. And people compare John and Paul a LOT.
We can all read what you said. Still disagree. And obviously if a song touches you or not is quite subjective.
Many name "Silly love songs" as one of the, well, silliest songs ever written.
It still touches me. It's honest, it's true, it's fun, it's very well sung and arranged, and it's about love. Very romantic.
If what you say is largely the case for YOU, that's fine.
Just don't try making it an objective truth.
It's not an objective truth. Songs by Paul can touch people in just the same way as John's songs can, obviously, and that is subjective. But at the same time, it is clear to see that Paul never got as political as John, never criticised organised religion or capitalism or used harsh language or told people what to feel. People treat John's music in a certain artistic light because he was trying to engineer change through his songs. Paul rarely ever did that and that's why people don't see it as "artistically resonant", as I put before. If anybody's going to put forward a weakness about McCartney's songwriting it is pretty much that he doesn't "write from the soul"; in everything else he's very skilled. Which is why I chose it to make my original point about where the individual weaknesses of the Beatles lie.
3.51pm
12 March 2010
Offline
Ben Ramon said
It's not an objective truth. Songs by Paul can touch people in just the same way as John's songs can, obviously, and that is subjective. But at the same time, it is clear to see that Paul never got as political as John, never criticised organised religion or capitalism or used harsh language or told people what to feel. People treat John's music in a certain artistic light because he was trying to engineer change through his songs. Paul rarely ever did that and that's why people don't see it as "artistically resonant", as I put before. If anybody's going to put forward a weakness about McCartney's songwriting it is pretty much that he doesn't "write from the soul"; in everything else he's very skilled. Which is why I chose it to make my original point about where the individual weaknesses of the Beatles lie.
So first he rarely ever "employed enough deep feeling" in his songs, now he "doesn't write from the soul", it's getting better and better!
Won't comment on that, since there obviously is no point….
Let's stick to your other claim, which is as ridiculous but easier to rebuke.
Paul never got as political as John, never criticised organised religion or capitalism or used harsh language or told people what to feel.
Let the man speak for himself.
No harsh language? No critisizing? Obviously this one missed your attention:
or this one:
or this one:
or this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..dyNvHXPCMo
You're obviously totally unaware of the fact that Paul and Linda McCartney were outspoken Vegetarians long before that was "cool", in fact since the early 70s.
Linda later made herself a career by selling vegetarian food. Well done, Linda!!
On many of his tours there were video-clips shown telling people to care about the killing of whales, ban of landmines, vegetarism etc.
He played on soooo many benefit concerts to raise attention to many problems…
Special mention for the concert for "Kampuchea", the last Wings gig ever in 1979, which Paul initialized.
I vividly remember how Paul spoke in front of politicians – I think at the UN – about earth warming (having to admit that he had no in-depth knowledge of the facts, he just wanted to support the fight against it).
I guess I made my point clear, that you just didn't know what you were talking about.
I'm sure you did mean well, so I leave it at that and say "You're welcome".
5.32pm
26 March 2012
Offline
I was aware of all the things you listed above. Believe it or not I am probably as big a fan of Macca's music as yourself, but I can accept that he's not God incarnate… originally I gave a very balanced argument to do with the Beatles' strengths and weaknesses, explained how I felt that there was a period where Paul was practically unsurpassed as a songwriter, claimed that he has been treated unfairly by the public in comparison to John as you also seem to feel, claimed that his solo career is extremely underrated and overlooked, and went on to say that a lot of it stands up to his work with the Beatles. Really we are on common ground. But you vehemently leapt on the one tiny negative point that I made about him, which is something very often said by a lot of people. And I was only saying that to emphasise my point that the Beatles were all human and had downfalls occasionally.
But returning to the original debate, where John is thought of as a political, revolutionary songwriter, often touted to a "messianic" degree, Paul is not considered to be such a thing to nearly the same extent, especially in the eyes of the public who don't rabidly idolize him and see him first and foremost as a writer of pop songs. I'm going to leave my case at that because it's clear that any small imbalance that anybody perceives in McCartney's talent is going to cause you great anger and distress, but I guess we can't all be perfect Paul disciples like yourself.
6.21pm
28 March 2012
Offline
I'm not sure how to copy text yet, so I hope these responses are clear.
To The Walrus: Interesting perspective on other great artists being pilloried in the press. Good to keep in perspective. Regarding Paul: sounds like where we part ways is not in evaluating the arc of his career—with both of us saying that there was not a sharp decline in quality of his work--but simply in the degree to which we appreciate or like his music.
Ben Ramon-- Though I don't necessarily agree that the post-Beatles fell hard from a great height, I do think they were compared to a very very high standard. I also agree that all their music was improved not only by the collaborative song-writing efforts of the other members of the band but also simply by the other members' creative performances and interpretations of the music--interpretations that effectively contributed to the songwriting. Even where I don't see eye-to-eye with your analysis of their respective post-Beatles career, I thought you expressed yourself very persuasively. For what it's worth, I thought you were perhaps too harsh regarding George, not Paul. I took the bulk of your Paul comments to be glowingly positive.
Zig--Yep, good reminder that our judgment in the moment isn't always what it is retrospect. AND that that judgment is very heavily subjective. Not much to disagree with there.
Inner Light—I feel that perhaps my own initial comments were most unfair to George. I only own about 35-40 of George's post-Beatles songs, and a good bulk of these come from ATMP. I suspect I represented myself more authoritatively about his work than I had any right. I quite like--and in some cases love--the songs of his that I do own, but I'm less familiar with some of his work than I should be. Honestly I'm not in a position to judge how some of his last albums sound.
Into the Sky With Diamonds--You make a really interesting point. Not only is Paul's work divisive, but people can't agree on which of his work represents his best work. As for me, my opinion has changed over time. As a kid I loved his pop tunes of the '70's. Nowadays they don't much do as much for me as they once did, but there are tons of songs that, with repeated listening, I've gone from disliking to adoring. (Example: I pretty much hated Backseat of My Car the first time I heard it. Nowadays I'd rank it up there with any of his best work either during or after The Beatles.)
Mean-M-M: I've never listened to Broad Street (except for No More Lonely Nights) and I'm beginning to think this is perhaps my good fortune.
Paulsbass: Well, I think in you I've finally met someone who is an even more stout defender of Paul than me. I've read lots of your comments in other posts and in fact I've expanded my Paul catalogue because of many of your comments. So thank you. I've learned a lot from you. But I should also add that I didn't read Ben Ramon as saying Paul had no depth in any absolute way. I think he just made a comparative point of Paul's music with John's. Now I adore Paul. He's my favorite Beatle (right now, at least), and i obviously think his post-Beatles career is terrific and also underrated. (Though in fairness not by the public, of course, since he's put a ziillion songs on the top 40 charts.) but i think none of the Beatles has ALL of the strengths of the others. they each brought something unique to the table. so though it's true that paul has his own political moments, transforming the political world through his music just isn't his forte. or emphasis. and that's okay. his genius and talent runs a different direction. paul IS capable of writing good lyrics, even moving lyrics, but i'd say lyrics aren't in general his strength. he's simply the best tunesmith of the last half of the 20th century. and that ain't too shabby in my opinion. my three daughters all love paul's music, but we all have a good time poking fun at some of paul's lyrics. in my opinion it doesn't take away from our love for him. nor does it deny the songs that have great lyrics. it's just part of his charm. and to say he's less spiritual than george or less political than john isn't to say he's lacking depth in any absolute sense. nor does it make him the lesser musician or songwriter because of it. it's simply a comparative judgment in a specific area.
7.33pm
12 March 2010
Offline
Ben Ramon said
I was aware of all the things you listed above.
Fine. Then I don't understand why you wrote
it is clear to see that Paul never got as political as John, never criticised organised religion or capitalism or used harsh language or told people what to feel.
which is obviously plain wrong, as I pointed out.
I'm aware of course that in contrast to John he's always had a positive attitude, trying more to talk to and move people instead of pissing them off, and that shows in his music. He's also way more subtle in his messages than John.
I still don't like it when people overlook that he's a very outspoken and political person with a huge catalogue of social engagements.
Believe it or not I am probably as big a fan of Macca's music as yourself, but I can accept that he's not God incarnate…
Neither do I believe he is without flaws, believe it or not! I just don't like it when people throw stuff at him that's wrong.
originally I gave a very balanced argument to do with the Beatles' strengths and weaknesses, explained how I felt that there was a period where Paul was practically unsurpassed as a songwriter, claimed that he has been treated unfairly by the public in comparison to John as you also seem to feel, claimed that his solo career is extremely underrated and overlooked, and went on to say that a lot of it stands up to his work with the Beatles. Really we are on common ground.
I did realize that and totally agreed with your op. You absolutely know your stuff (in general 
and you express yourself on a very high intellectual and social level. That's why I honoured you with lenghty replies, in contrast to the Walrus, who just doesn't know anything about Paul's career.
But you vehemently leapt on the one tiny negative point that I made about him, which is something very often said by a lot of people.
Yep, you just went on to write stuff I vehemently disagree with, as you might have noticed… And since, as you point out yourself, many people claim that, I disagree even stronger.
And I was only saying that to emphasise my point that the Beatles were all human and had downfalls occasionally.
And rightfully so. But you hopefully realize that it's hard to accept things like Paul didn't employ deep feelings or didn't write from his soul or NEVER got political in any way.
But returning to the original debate, where John is thought of as a political, revolutionary songwriter, often touted to a "messianic" degree, Paul is not considered to be such a thing to nearly the same extent, especially in the eyes of the public who don't rabidly idolize him and see him first and foremost as a writer of pop songs.
That's correct, hence my point in making it clear this view is partially wrong.
I'm going to leave my case at that because it's clear that any small imbalance that anybody perceives in McCartney's talent is going to cause you great anger and distress, but I guess we can't all be perfect Paul disciples like yourself.
Ok, so let me say that I'm sorry for making a case for all the people who think that it's not allowed to critisize "his holiness" Sir Paul, as someone put it without some fanatic fans jumping at you.
I don't like being considered too fanatic, it's just that these discussions occur again and again and again and again, because so many people just don't know or ignore stuff about Paul.
And I know I should be more relaxed about it, but it just pisses me off, I can't help it.
I realize you were interested in a serious discussion and made my point.
Maybe it's possible for you to understand my position and how I reacted to your claims.
I'm not interested in driving anyone away here, especially when he's so well outspoken as you are.
Peace.
Most Users Ever Online: 597
Currently Online: Von Bontee, meanmistermustard, unknown, LongHairedLady, Juliana Melo
3 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
mr. Sun king coming together: 6972
meanmistermustard: 3419
MeanMrsMustard: 2794
Egroeg Evoli: 1514
vonbontee: 1427
GniknuS: 1365
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 86
Members: 1678
Moderators: 5
Admins: 1
Forum Stats:
Groups: 3
Forums: 33
Topics: 2389
Posts: 73046
Newest Members: Juliana Melo, musicfreak21, Victor Sepúlveda, TheNoWhereMan5870, darinh
Moderators: Joe (2698), skye (2295), Ellie (1), Zig (2752), mithveaen (4675)
Administrators: Joe (2698)
