Log In
Register
2.27pm
18 October 2013
Offline
I think it’s clear you don’t appreciate Paul’s solo career.
And what’s wrong with that? I’d like to know.
The old joke goes: ‘When did Paul McCartney write ‘Silly Love Songs’?
And From 1962 ’til 2014
Jump on the bandwagon Billy……..And consider what you’ve done in your entire life that will last as long as ‘Maybe I’m Amazed ‘
2.47pm
22 December 2013
Offline Not sure what “bandwagon” I’m jumping on, especially when I’m clearly in the minority in this thread, but OK. ‘Maybe I’m Amazed ‘ is a good example for it’s anything BUT “silly”, in fact, the ‘McCartney’ album isn’t as bad as most of the other ones. Sure, it has its rough spots, but it hinted at bigger and better things for Paul down the road. He made that record with total disregard for any critics and didn’t give a crap about what anybody thought of it, it’s definitely his most unpretentious solo offering and ‘Every Night ‘ & ‘Maybe I’m Amazed ‘ pick up where his ‘Let It Be ‘ songs leave off. The trouble is, instead of building off of this he pays too much attention to the critics who at the time were gonna poo-poo anything he made because of his public spat with The Beatles, and he actually declares “do the exact opposite next time” in response which brought upon a most disappointing ‘RAM’ follow-up, where he traded in his songwriting for studio gloss which the critics felt was lacking on ‘McCartney’….:-)
10.37pm
14 December 2009
Offline
I don’t think Paul really was paying attention to what the critics thought of McCartney – at least not their notion that it was underproduced. (I believe they had a bigger problem with (what they perceived as) its shortage of fully fleshed-out songs instead of little throwaway instrumentals and so forth.) Paul (like many pothead recording artists!) likes rich, full production for its own sake.
Paul: Yeah well… first of all, we’re bringing out a ‘Stamp Out Detroit’ campaign.
12.12am
18 October 2013
Offline Billy Rhythm said
Not sure what “bandwagon” I’m jumping on, especially when I’m clearly in the minority in this thread, but OK. ‘Maybe I’m Amazed ‘ is a good example for it’s anything BUT “silly”, in fact, the ‘McCartney’ album isn’t as bad as most of the other ones. Sure, it has its rough spots, but it hinted at bigger and better things for Paul down the road. He made that record with total disregard for any critics and didn’t give a crap about what anybody thought of it, it’s definitely his most unpretentious solo offering and ‘Every Night ‘ & ‘Maybe I’m Amazed ‘ pick up where his ‘Let It Be ‘ songs leave off. The trouble is, instead of building off of this he pays too much attention to the critics who at the time were gonna poo-poo anything he made because of his public spat with The Beatles, and he actually declares “do the exact opposite next time” in response which brought upon a most disappointing ‘RAM’ follow-up, where he traded in his songwriting for studio gloss which the critics felt was lacking on ‘McCartney’….:-)
The bandwagon is really the constant criticism over the years that Paul’s a lightweight…… lovey-dovey and lacking grit. I personally can see the point when comparisons to Lennon are made but reject the overall fairness of it. Paul has a bias toward the melodic and the theme of being in love. Quite often that’s his inspiration to write. ‘And what’s wrong with that,Id like to know.
John also wrote his share of anguished love songs. But with Paul, record-reviewers that are keen to establish their street-cred perpetuate the Paul is naff school of enlightened criticism.
What can Paul do? He responds with a mix of styles on his albums some harder edged and some styles that he’s not so good at. Some successes come along and some failures. But whatever he does he can’t shake the label so blithely pinned on everything he produces.
‘Silly Love Songs’ was his…….lovey-dovey ‘foxtrot oscar’ to those critics. That’s some trick to pull off. Good on yer Paul!!
2 things:
1 I’m a John man
2 It’s OK that we disagree.
Cheers
6.14pm
1 August 2013
Offline 
parlance said
acmac said
meanmistermustard said
Acmac, My Love is on the Red Rose Speedway LP, and one of the better songs.Oh, was it not a single then?
It was. When you said you were glad LaLD isn’t on an album, and a lot of Paul’s singles are like that for you, it looked like you were saying “My Love” isn’t on an album. I had the same confusion at first.
parlance
Ah! Gotcha. 
“Live And Let Die ” — Looks like I’m the inverse of a person who doesn’t care for Paul yet likes that song! No surprise there.
5.10am
17 January 2014
Offline Paul is basically telling the critics off with Silly Love songs and it hit number one gotta love that. Also its has a great bass line vintage McCartney. I respect what he did by starting over and taking chances. He got off his pedestal, started a new group, was and still is creating great music. Saying he had a weak solo career is complete rubbish. I think everyone is a little biased judging his solo work because they compare it to the beatles.
The following people thank Musketeer Gripweed for this post:
Wigwam5.31am
18 October 2013
Offline I obviously agree……..
But I’m trying to make the further point that, had there never been a Beatles and this lad McCartney had turned up Out Of The Blue , he’d have been big……. As you suggest the press reaction without a Beatles comparison would have been ecstatic.
I make this point because another writer here basically said that, ‘had it not been for The Beatles Paul wouldn’t have got passed a 2nd album.’
3.26pm
10 August 2011
Offline
I have a foot in both camps. I think a number of his 70s single releases were saccharine and trite, and even though they were commercially successful, they sank him in the eyes of many if not most of his Beatle fans and critics. I think they are responsible for the long, very long delay in McCartney’s getting into the Rock’n’Roll Hall of Fame (putting aside the merits of that institution).
On the other hand, I think his overall output has been terrific. If I took all the songs of his that I like to some degree or another, they would fill many albums.
McCartney IMO would most definitely have had a successful solo career with his post-Beatle material. For one, he would never have started with McCartney and Wild Life – at least not in their existing form. As a debut album, McCartney would have been more polished, the awful stuff would have been removed either by Macca himself or the producer, and he might have waited a bit longer to include “Another Day ” and “Admiral Halsey .”
McCartney would have been another Billy Joel.
"Into the Sky with Diamonds" (the Beatles and the Race to the Moon – a history)
7.17pm
22 December 2013
Offline I think one of the problems is that he’s put so much out there, I believe that the OP tallied it as 23 Studio Albums or, twice as much as The Beatles released and he’s repeated himself many times over. Take the ‘Hi, Hi, Hi ‘ single, for example, which sounds to me like Paul trying to prove that he can still rock like ‘Helter Skelter ‘, especially since coming off of the heals of ‘Mary Had A Little Lamb’ which hadn’t exactly re-established him as Paul McCartney “the composer”. For the most part he succeeds here, except again that he’s preoccupied with “answering his critics” again, allowing for their meaningless reviews to dictate where he goes next musically & lyrically ala ‘Silly Love Songs’. Not only that but very deliberately wanting to cause controversy with the BBC, which he’d all ready done earlier during the very same year with ‘Give Ireland Back To The Irish’.
As for the song ‘Hi, Hi, Hi ‘, is it much different musically from the unspectacular ‘Smile Away ‘ “rocker” which uses the same formula from ‘RAM’? Or, did Paul evolve this musical direction much with subsequent ‘Hi, Hi, Hi ‘ clones such as ‘I’ve Had Enough’ or ‘Girls’ School’? He’d been known before as a songwriter who was constantly pushing the proverbial envelope in the directions he chose to explore musically, and in my opinion he was making music during his solo years that was either in response to what others felt about him, or afraid to really stretch the boundaries out of fear that his reputation would take a further pounding. Paul’s insecurities about how his legacy will be remembered are well known, and they didn’t just grow overnight after the masses praised John’s legacy after his death, they became very apparent in his music after ‘McCartney’, an album that he worked very hard on while still technically a “Beatle” that wasn’t very well received by the critics. The fact that ‘McCartney’ sold so well wasn’t much of a consulation, it was expected to sell, he wasn’t quite prepared to have his music attacked like it was. ‘Magical Mystery Tour ‘ was different for it was a film that wasn’t well received, and he had the others to share the blame with (he said “We Goofed”).
John’s solo “legacy” is remembered differently because he didn’t put out nearly as much, and when his creative spark was beginning to fade he stopped making music for a time. It’s not much different than The Beatles ending their run before it went south, George went through a similar period from the Mid 70’s to Early 80’s, cranking out albums with more regularity but clearly should’ve taken a long break after the ‘Dark Hoarse Tour’ in 1974. George eventually did take more time inbetween musical endeavours after that and the results were excellent, ‘Cloud Nine ‘, ‘The Travelling Wilburys’, & ‘Brainwashed‘ are all high points in his post-Beatles’ works. Look at the high quality of John’s songs on ‘Double Fantasy ‘ after taking a good break. Getting back to Paul, this is one of the chief reasons why I feel that ‘NEW’ turned out so well, because he wasn’t just putting out the album because it was time for one, but took an extended break from the studio and got back to his roots of playing Beatles’ songs live for a time and the result is a highly polished work that’s more himself, and subsequently something “new”…:-)
8.31pm
10 August 2011
Offline Billy Rhythm, I agree. In fact, I’m guessing that everyone on the forum who’s a McCartney fan would agree that he could have held back a significant number of releases and been better for it.
Where we’ll (strongly) disagree is WHAT songs he should have kept to himself. For example, without the slightest hesitation I would have had him keep high up on a shelf away from anyone’s view all of Wild Life , “Kreen-Akrore,” “Smile Away ,” “Silly Love Songs,” “No More Lonely Nights,” “With a Little Luck,” “Girlfriends,” “So Bad,” and a bunch of songs off McCartney 2 whose names I’ve forgotten. And yet I recognize that many people on the Forum like these songs. (Give My Regards… seems to be the only universal dislike.)
Conversely, I could listen to “Nineteen Hundred And Eighty Five ” and “Monkberry Moon Delight ” all day long – and surely not everyone agrees.
@IveJustSeenAFaceo Perhaps when he’s done with the Beatle song survey we can get IveJustSeenAFaceo to do some kind of survey on the most commonly loved/disliked McCartney songs.
"Into the Sky with Diamonds" (the Beatles and the Race to the Moon – a history)
8.38pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline Atlas said
I’m trying to make the further point that, had there never been a Beatles and this lad McCartney had turned up Out Of The Blue , he’d have been big…….
I always find these hypothetical claims rather strange. How can anybody talk about the impact McCartney might have had “had there never been a Beatles”? The McCartney we hear today, and have heard since The Beatles split, was forged in those thirteen years he spent alongside John Lennon , and within the group that they were the first two members of.
Without those years, had Paul even found success, and not gone on to be a teacher like his father wanted, he would have been a completely different artist. You cannot point to songs written in the ’70s and suggest that they would have been greeted differently had he never been a Beatle, because there is no chance that those songs would have been written had he not been a Beatle.
Yes, maybe he would have found success as a solo artist in the ’60s, but the career would have been completely different.
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
9.34pm
22 December 2013
Offline paulsbass said
Your musical observations regarding the similarity of Hi, Hi, Hi and Helter Skelter are totally invalid. HS is a totally different cup of tea.
I agree that ‘Helter Skelter ‘ is “a totally different cup of tea”, maybe you should go back and read what I actually said.
paulsbass said
Btw, Mary had a little lamb is a PERFECT example that contradicts your claim that Paul only put out what he thought would be expected or wanted from him.
I actually defended ‘Mary Had A Little Lamb’ in this other thread here https://www.beatlesbible.com/f…..gs/page-2/ and even posted a nice video of it. It’s a good example of exactly what I’m getting at, as with the ‘McCartney’ album Paul’s making music here that’s unpretentious and it shows, but instead of building off of it he responds with releasing something to appease the critics for a follow-up.
paulsbass said
you’re just a bitter, petty hater.
It’s a thread about “Ranking Paul’s Studio Albums” and I’m sorry if not everybody ranks them as high as you obviously do, maybe you should ask yourself why my opinion strikes such a “hater” chord with yourself, perhaps there’s more validity to my viewpoints than you’re willing to admit to? Why else would one stoop to name calling, or are you just having a bad day or something?…:-)
paulsbass said
I stumbled over this on a short visite why not play the part of Paul’s advocate AGAIN…
Why do you feel that Sir Paul McCartney would even need an “advocate” anyway? Why not let the music speak for itself if it’s so great?…:-)
9.52pm
Reviewers
1 November 2013
Offline paulsbass said
It’s a thread about “Ranking Paul’s Studio Albums” and I’m sorry if not everybody ranks them as high as you obviously do, maybe you should ask yourself why my opinion strikes such a “hater” chord with yourself, perhaps there’s more validity to my viewpoints than you’re willing to admit to? Why else would one stoop to name calling, or are you just having a bad day or something?…:-)
Well, Einstein, maybe YOU should ask yourself why YOU did feel the need to “add” to a thread ranking Paul’s albums, saying it’s more or less all crap.
And cou can try to wise-crack as much as you like, as long as you bitterly fail to answer the validity of MY viewpoints (comparing HHH, SA, IHE and GS), maybe your point was more of a failure than you’re willing to admit to?
Why else would you stop by in an obvious fan-thread, name-calling Paul? Are you maybe just having a bad life or something?
Look who’s back, everyone!!!
(This signature brought to you by Net Boy and Net Girl. Putting messages in modems since 1996.)
9.53pm
Reviewers
1 November 2013
Offline @paulsbass To “rank” something, there has to be stuff at the bottom. I didn’t see any “hating” in Billy’s post, and he made some very valid points.
(This signature brought to you by Net Boy and Net Girl. Putting messages in modems since 1996.)
9.58pm
22 December 2013
Offline paulsbass said
Einstein
Your name calling is about as original as most of Paul’s solo albums are…:-)
paulsbass said
you bitterly fail to answer the validity of MY viewpoints (comparing HHH, SA, IHE and GS
Apologies if I missed the part where there’s “validity” in your attempt to acetane the musical diversity between these songs, seems to me your focus was on my use of the word “subsequent”. Thanks for reminding me that ‘Hi Hi Hi ‘ came out in 1972 while ‘I’ve Had Enough’ was released in 1978, it underscores the fact that in 6 years Paul was still recycling the same act and was repeating himself as I’d all ready pointed out.
paulsbass said
Why else would you stop by in an obvious fan-thread, name-calling Paul?
Please point out to me where I’m “name calling Paul”, I’ve scrolled back but yet to find any examples. Thanks for effectively demonstrating what I’ve respectfully attempted to get across here, you’re own writing is inspired by the response of Paul’s critics just as many of McCartney’s Solo Albums are…:-)
The following people thank Billy Rhythm for this post:
IveJustSeenAFaceo10.02pm
Reviewers
1 November 2013
Offline The master at work. Enlightening stuff.
Points that can be contended with without devolving into stupid pointless arguing:
1: my username is IveJustSeenAFaceO, and don’t you forget it.
2: At least Billy was respecting other people’s opinions, unlike you.
3: Bye-bye!!
The following people thank IveJustSeenAFaceo for this post:
Into the Sky with Diamonds(This signature brought to you by Net Boy and Net Girl. Putting messages in modems since 1996.)
10.20pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline @paulsbass Always nice to see old faces.
It is a shame you seem to have forgotten/chosen to ignore the rules of the forum. May I remind you of the third, “Be polite and respectful to one another. It’s fine to disagree with someone, but don’t be abusive.”
I understand you have strong feelings about Paul, and that you disagree with Billy’s assessment of Paul’s solo career, but there is no way to read you calling a forum member you have had no interaction with “a bitter, petty hater” without thinking it abusive. It certainly isn’t what most would call “polite and respectful”.
It is a shame you feel the need to resort to personal attacks on somebody who doesn’t agree with you.
I’m sorry you cannot see that we do not want to be just another of those forums where people throw insults at each other.
The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:
Zig, IveJustSeenAFaceo, Into the Sky with Diamonds, Joe, Von Bontee"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
10.23pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline A note to all and everyone to remain courteous to everyone else no matter if you think they are talking so much horse shit you could start cultivating a rose garden to rival the Government Rose Garden. One of the few rules is be to be respectful of and towards others and their opinions – disagree but please don’t name call.
The following people thank meanmistermustard for this post:
Zig"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
10.36pm
Reviewers
14 April 2010
Offline I will ask, going forward, that everyone please stick to defending their own positions and stop trying to prove someone else wrong. If you are telling us what your opinions are, then you are both right.
Name calling will not be tolerated.
To the fountain of perpetual mirth, let it roll for all its worth. And all the children boogie.
10.40pm
17 January 2014
Offline I am just amazed at how long Paul has lasted in the music industry. So easy to burn up and just not release music. But when your a musician and performing flea why not put out albums? His out put has been amazing and I see nothing wrong with pumping out albums in his prime years while he could. On the whole thing that Paul does what the critics wants… The only thing that really keeps artist in check are critics and fans. I see nothing wrong with adjusting your work based on experience, you live and learn. Also Johns first two albums are perfect examples. Plastic Ono Band was critically acclaimed, but didn’t sell very well and didn’t have any hit singles. So John goes back and does Imagine and said that he made it sugar coated based on others opinions of his first LP. So what is wrong with listening to critics and your fan bases opinion and adjusting? You also have to remember at this point, all the ex-beatles were trying to find there own solo sound and experimented with there first few solo LPs. They were also all competing with each other now. So they would do anything to get a leg up on the other, and taking critics opinions seriously helped them get that leg up. Also John and George found success right of the bat. It took Paul a little longer in the eyes of critics, but in many instances critics can make or break you based of how they rate an album.
Also, Hey Ivejusteenaface, BR’s first post was basically bashing Pauls solo career and didn’t even rank the albums. If your not going to stay on the threads topic or have your post meet the criteria of the thread then why bother posting? I am not saying that you shouldn’t voice your opinion, just in this instance it was bound to derail the thread. It seems that some love to argue. Might not be a bad idea to add a debate forum? So instead of derailing these threads, there could be a forum to debate or converse on different opinions. Paulsbass, I’ve experienced the same thing before with a common denominator, made me leave the forum for a time too actually. REMEMBER WE ARE ALL BEATLES FANS, PEACE AND LOVE, PEACE AND LOVE.
The following people thank Musketeer Gripweed for this post:
IveJustSeenAFaceo, paulsbass
