Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Wordno]

I really feel bad for him. When I watch videos on Youtube of Wings or just his solo career, there are always John fans that try to rip him to shreds. They say idiotic things like "John is better", "John was the legend and Paul was just a musician". Its not only John fans but the press. Ever since the 70s Paul never ever got the respect he deserved. The press always saying "When are The Beatles getting back together?". Wings never got recognized as a real awesome group because the f-ing press were too busy asking "When are the beatles getting back together?". Paul could never do what he wanted because he was always being ripped to shreds by the press because they were too busy comparing him to John Lennon.

No what gets me is when people have the nerve to say John was a sweet, loving gentle soul and that he was a legend. Now most people who know a lot about the beatles know that this isn't true. John was a flippin a**hole to the people who loved him and pretty much took everyone for granted. He was anything but a gentle person and treated Julian, Cynthia, Paul McCartney, George Martin and more people very badly. People even go as far as saying John was The Beatles! Thats absurd! Paul was the creative and driving force of The Beatles. Paul kept the beatles to legendary Status after they stopped touring. The other three beatles didn't even want to do anything and would have had their mediocre careers five years early if it weren't for Paul. If you look at most of the Beatles standard songs, they are written by Paul. Songs like Yesterday, Hey Jude, Get Back, Can't Buy me love, All my loving, I want to hold your hand etc. John hardly had anything during the late beatles era and his solo career after the beatles is hardly what you call Mediocre. Paul on the other hand was a superstar in the 70s and had albums that reached number one in the charts and sold out concerts with a lot of fans who were only Wings fans and didn't ever know who the beatles were. But people will never recognize this because John died so brutally. Now he his for some reason of legendary status while Paul is seen as an egotistical maniac talking about himself only when all he is doing is trying to justify why he is better than John.

Now some will say that I'm just a fanboy but thats not it. I am just recognizing what Paul is saying and the fact that Paul was the one who was the talented one. Will their ever be a day when Paul gets the credit he deserves? Unfortunately for Paul, it will probably be when he is dead. So Paul will never live to see that day and that is why I feel bad for him.

[adamzero]

I wouldn't feel bad for Paul.  The real Beatles fans know how important he is.  And though something of a control freak in the studio (no doubt because of his great talent and his melodic "quickness"), he seems to be a pretty damned decent guy.  

Maybe a bit of a tightwad, but considering how he grew up, he learned to hold onto his money.  

I would counter that Paul didn't "save" the late '60s Beatles.  He wrote some big hits, but George was also writing increasingly great songs (like All Things Must Pass) that couldn't make it onto a Beatles album.  For my money, John wrote some of the best songs on the White Album (and George the best, While My Guitar Gently Weeps).  Paul sorta dominates Abbey Road in number but John and George have the best songs (Something, Come Together and Here Comes the Sun).  

And dammit, Paul just kept writing those annoying granny songs Honey Pie, Maxwell's Silver Hammer, Martha My Dear, Ob la di Ob La Da, Your Mother Should Know (a little earlier but the part of the trend).  

So all in all things even out.  Anybody with any sense has got to love Paul, warts and all, for his talent and his humanity.  He's probably the closest thing pop music has come to a Mozart.  Listen to those high horns on Penny Lane.  Compared to George Martin's original horn parts on Anthology.  Wow!

[harihead]

First, Wordno, let me thank you for your efforts to introduce me to a lot of Paul's solo work. As I have only recently heard all the Beatles songs (yes, I'm a late-arriving fan), I'm only starting to look into the solo careers of the guys. So thank you for the helpful pointers! I really appreciate it.

I understand your frustration, but at the same time, I don't think any one person defined the Beatles. I really believe it was the chemistry. I think Paul worked really well with John and Paul knew he worked really well with John. That's why Paul kept making peace overtures in the late seventies. If it weren't for John's battle with the American immigration service, I'm fairly certain he and Paul at least would have gotten back together again. John was entering a period of nostalgia for the Beatles, and was talking about re-recording his Beatles hits. (I'm referring to statements he made in the studio; his official interviews were more calculated for public effect.)

Paul is always clever where music was concerned. He worked through his depression about the breakup earliest, because he's that kind of charge-ahead personality. He's generally an even-tempered bloke, which is what you need to handle Lennon, who could go into fits at any moment. They could also tell the truth to each other, which I'm not sure any of the Beatles enjoyed after the breakup. They all needed an editor (or producer, or co-author--some kind of sounding board) to produce their best work. I think any artist does. The problem is the individual Beatles were so revered and so talented that finding honest, competent feedback was hard to find. So they went it alone, for the most part. I think they would have preferred helpful criticism, as each of them reached for this in various points of their careers.

It's a pity that people tend to deify John (or other ones of the Beatles that are their particular favorites). John's meaningless assassination is going to stand as a moving and memorable event for many people. If Paul stays alive, which I hope he does for some time, he's going to experience a fade in popularity. But I don't think people's affections for him will fade. He's the sole remaining founding Beatle, and has already been honored in many ways. I don't see that changing. I hope and believe that people will always justly recognize his talent and achievements.

[dirtyoldsod]

Both Paul and John are amazing musicians in their own way, they have different styles but both are great.
From what I've heard about Paul, he was no angel, he treated his bandmates and close friends (Linda as an
exception) like dirt.
John was no angel either however. Whether I like someone as a person has no connection to how I feel about
their music, and it shouldn't to anyone. I don't know John or Paul on a personal level, and I doubt anyone else here
does either. Most just know them from what the media has told us, so it's hard to judge really, especially when you
don't know the full situations. In my opinion, yeah, Paul is the better musician, and he deserves more credit,
but don't let the person behind the music ruin it for you. Frankly, if that was the case, I would have hated Paul
a long time ago, judging by all the rumors and crap that float around his past. Whether all the bad things
everyone has heard are true or not, I doubt we'll ever know for sure, but I'll still love Paul. Hell, Wings are my
favorite band. You can't take those things too seriously, because like I said, no one knows for sure.

But that's just my opinion.

[The Fox Drummer]

I understand what you're saying, but I tend to disagree with you on several points. Poor Paul? Not really. Look at where he is today - he's a millionare, most people in the world know his name, his sungs are still sung forty years after they were written, and he was one of the two more famous Beatles. Personally, I would generally think of that as something to be envied, not something to complain about. Let me explain:

When I watch videos on Youtube of Wings or just his solo career, there are always John fans that try to rip him to shreds. They say idiotic things like "John is better", "John was the legend and Paul was just a musician".

Well, I'm sure some extreme Paul fans are the same way about John. You have to look at such things from both perspectives, really. Of course they're going to say "John is better" - they're John fans, aren't they? Many people would call you idiotic for saying that Paul is better, which seems to be your point, but it's obvious that you're not. As for John being the legend and Paul being a musician, well, John certainly did make a much bigger career for himself post-Beatles, more so than just writing a few songs - he became an icon for an era because of his activism. Paul wrote songs and didn't do much else during that time, and that's perfectly all right as well: he just chose not to go galavanting off into bigger things, which is a very Paul-esque thing to do. However, I wouldn't argue that only John is the legend here. Paul still gets his fair share of the limelight even today.

Paul was the one who was the talented one.

Whoa there! Let's not rush to conclusions, shall we? This is a matter of opinion if I've ever seen one. Again, you have to consider all the options and realise that John co-wrote many of the famous songs you're talking about. There could not be a McCartney without a Lennon, and vice versa just as strongly. And what about George? I've been listening to many of his songs lately, and I've begun to realise just how brilliant they really are. Take a look at the lyrics for Within Without You despite the uber-sitar-ness: that, unquestionably, is real talent. And hey, let's not forget Ringo either: some of his songs are just plain fun. You can't say that Paul was the Beatles' talent - there would be no Beatles without the other three.

Overall, I think you have a point that much of John's post-Beatles legend overshadows Paul, but again, John made the choice to do something more than the Beatles and Paul was content to write his own songs and keep his head down. I don't pity Paul, though. He's a very rich, famous man today, and during Beatlemania and afterwards he still got a lot of attention from the fans and press coverage. You describe him as ignored and thrust into a corner in the shadow of the Lennon-Legend, but he's hardly considered that today. (George, on the other hand...)

[Andy Smith]

Paul McCartney to me is an amazing songwriter, musician, & artist.
I've always thought he was the best out of the three musically & still do but
of course i have to admit that he can be an idiot at times :-/.
I think marrying Heather was a mstake & i just hope he's learned his
lesson but of course i do feel sorry for him. He has been through a lot (beatles, wings,
beatles-breakup, Linda dying, etc) & of course loosing his old buddy John.
People do critisize his work & the kind of music he writes at times, but he has
wrote so many songs that people can all remember even after the Beatles.
I still prefer his solo work than the others, he always seemed to go in
different directions. He probley is a tough person to work with but a very nice
guy as well. Why would people say 'he's great', if he treated them like dirt.
I've heard so many people say what a joy it is to work with him & hang out
with, so i think all the recent rumor's are rubbish!  

[dirtyoldsod]

He probley is a tough person to work with but a very nice
guy as well. Why would people say 'he's great', if he treated them like dirt.
I've heard so many people say what a joy it is to work with him & hang out
with, so i think all the recent rumor's are rubbish!  

I've read a few Wings/Paul books and even Denny Laine has said some
pretty rude things about him. More so Jojo Laine and Lennon himself.
Whether anything these people said were truth, or if they were exaggerations
of the truth by the authors of the books no one knows except for the people
themselves. I could think up a list of things I've heard from books and other
written sources:
-Paul made Denny drive up to Scotland (I think that's where
but I can't be bothered to check, it's not important) with Paul's livestock in his Rolls (car).
-Smuggled pot in Stella's clothing.
-Paul would change or add little bits to Denny's songs to get his name on the credit.
-"Denny Laine has commented publicly that, as least as far as he's concerned,
McCartney has always felt somewhat superior to Harrison"
-"I wish I could say I'd worked with the McCartneys, rather than for them"- Denny Laine
-Paul and Linda are apparently slobs.
-Paul ate meat behind Linda's back.

That's only a small list of crap I've read about Paul.

Now like I said, I'm not saying any of this is true, but these are some of the
few rumors I've heard. I'm just saying that you never really know about the person
behind the music. It really shouldn't matter either. Though I think because people
love someone's music so much they tend to think that they are angels or heaven sent
or something. What they are like as people we'll never know for sure. I'm sure Paul was
an ass at times, but I'm sure he was a good guy too.

[Andy Smith]

I think he tends to have a big ego at times.
Just watching Paul having a go at George in Let It Be i think
showed some of this. I wish George or John just could have gave him
a smack at times

Like tossing a coin.

[adamzero]

Eating meat behind Linda's back?!  What a hypocritical carnivorous bastard!  

Actually, that sounds like the "real Paul" to me--and makes me like him even more.  

[dirtyoldsod]

Eating meat behind Linda's back?!  What a hypocritical carnivorous bastard!  

Actually, that sounds like the "real Paul" to me--and makes me like him even more.  

Personally, I could see it, it makes me laugh, actually. XD

[CleanOldMan]

I can define his creative genious just for his work on "McCartney" alone.

Now, I can't really compare his work to John's, because the only songs I've heard from John's post-Beatles career, are Give Peace A Chance, Imagine, his cover of Ben E. King's Stand By Me, and...that's it. :B But I can still agree that James Paul McCartney is underrated.

[Wordno]

I can see now what you guys mean. I suppose this age old question "Whose better? McCartney or Lennon?" will last forever. McCartney fans will(like myself) will always see Paul as superior and Lennon fans will always see John as superior. No one is going to change my mind and I'm not going to change a Lennon fans mind. I see it as useless now to make people see things my way, its not going to happen. So it doesn't matter anymore whether people see Lennon as superior because I'll feel that they're wrong and I'm right and visa versa. Instead of trying to argue with people I think I'd just rather say that they were both great and that they both have their strengths and weakness'.

[Andy Smith]

I'd just rather say that they were both great and that they both have their strengths and weakness'.

Exactly, nobody's perfect.
I do think at times that people expect too much from Macca because he is just so
famous :. It's not his fault that he's got a god-given talent & people buy his records.
John, Paul & George were all strong writers, but Macca i feel has always gone in so
many musical directions (rock, pop, classical, country etc) He's tried so many styles in
his songs that think makes him so interesting. That's one of the reasons why i love
Macca so much .