DM's Beatles forums

Solo forums => Paul McCartney => Topic started by: Bobber on October 12, 2010, 10:11:38 AM

Title: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: Bobber on October 12, 2010, 10:11:38 AM
Well, according to FAB that is. Read the book review below. Your thoughts?

Book Review - FAB: An Intimate Life of Paul McCartney
Live and let die
Paul McCartney, the most ambitious Beatle, blew his great talent when he went solo, writes Liz Thomson
FAB: An Intimate Life of Paul McCartney By Howard Sounes

   

Reading this book, listening to his post-Beatles music, it's hard to disagree with David Puttnam – that Paul McCartney is a man of "immense, immense, immense talent" unable to make the crucial extra effort that would transform the merely good into the exceptional. "Was it that it was too hard, was it that it was too challenging? Or was it that he was a reasonably contented guy and he didn't think it was worth putting himself through that amount of pain? But the difference between good and great is that last 15%."

A natural musician with an astonishing gift for melody, McCartney has indeed got by on talent rather than effort. Moreover, he has (like many celebrities) surrounded himself with yes-men whose place at "court" depends on their paying suitable obeisance.

In Beatle days, competition with the outspoken John Lennon was a healthy game-raiser, and the schoolmasterly George Martin was always in the control room. After the Beatles, McCartney appears rarely to have felt the need for advice: members of Wings were hired hands, paid (mostly poorly) to obey His Master's Voice, while wife Linda, scarcely a musical bone in her body, acted as cheerleader-in-chief. The vast quantities of dope they consumed surely blunted their critical faculties. Linda arrived at the hearing for one of their many drug busts "stoned out of her mind", according to their lawyer, Len Murray.

Puttnam and Murray are among some 220 people with whom Howard Sounes talked or corresponded for what he believes is "a better-balanced, more detailed and more comprehensive life" than any so far. Some provide further fragments for the jigsaw (Ravi Shankar, John Tavener, Carla Lane) but others (Ken Dodd, Bruce Forsyth, Jeffrey Archer) have nothing illuminating to offer.

The likes of Astrid Kirchherr and Jûrgen Vollmer are long talked-out, though we haven't previously heard from Imelda Marcos, whose treatment of the Beatles in the Philippines led to their decision to quit touring.

Those most likely to add to the story – Ringo Starr, the McCartney children, Jane Asher – remain silent. It's a credit to Asher that she has said nothing since 21 July 1968 when, questioned about her engagement by chat-show host Simon Dee, she replied: "I haven't broken it off, but it's finished."

McCartney was, from the get-go, the most ambitious Beatle, convinced from an early age that he would be famous. He was arrogant, turning up late for the meeting with Brian Epstein that would seal their future.

He found happiness with Linda Eastman, a groupie who determined she would marry him, and his grief at her death propelled him into the chilly embrace of Heather Mills. Their brief entanglement occupies fully 10% of Fab.

This is little more than a thorough scissors-and-paste study which draws heavily on Barry Miles's authorised biography. Still, it's a good read for those seeking a Pauline perspective on the Beatles plus a look at his solo career.

FAB: An Intimate Life of Paul McCartney
By Howard Sounes
Harper Collins, £20, 563PP
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: Kevin on October 12, 2010, 12:23:54 PM
I guess he has some points. But how does he differentiate between good and exceptional. Like always it's a matter of taste. He doesn't really say why.
I think McCartney peaked as a songwriter between 65 and 67. As the 70's progressed almost all of the sixties greats found their music declining in popularity (and I guess relevance) as they grew older.
But yes - Macca is almost universally criticised for the supposed lack of substance in hios work. But really, find me any great sixties act turning out exceptional music in 1976. Weren't Paperback Writer, Eleanor Rigby, Sgt Pepper, Penny Lane and Hey Jude exceptional enough>
IMO McCartney, Harrison and Lennon were all off the boil by the mid 70's. The difference with McCartney, despite him being one the uncoolest, ridiculed acts of the decade, was that he still sold records.
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: Bobber on October 15, 2010, 12:58:32 PM
...got by on talent rather than effort...

I feel I can go along with that opinion. I sometimes feel that Paul could have given us music that really mattered more than most of his catalogue now. But maybe that's just wishful thinking.
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: stevie on October 15, 2010, 10:09:36 PM
The Beatles set the bar too high for the acts that followed in th e70's, so their solo stuff was never gonna be as good.

Ok, you can pick a great album from the best of each solo Beatle but none of the songs - IMHO - are better than any of the best Beatle songs.

Granted, I only have a couple of John's solo albums and Wing Greatest and Flaming Pie. I've never heard much of any of Macca's output in the last 2 decades, only the singles.
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: Bobber on October 19, 2010, 01:03:06 PM
Still I'm wondering who those people are that were interviewed for this book. John Tavener, Carla Lane, Jeffrey Archer? Why didn't they ask me?
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: carlacundari on October 21, 2010, 09:32:52 AM
Well, according to FAB that is. Read the book review below. Your thoughts?

Book Review - FAB: An Intimate Life of Paul McCartney
Live and let die
Paul McCartney, the most ambitious Beatle, blew his great talent when he went solo, writes Liz Thomson
FAB: An Intimate Life of Paul McCartney By Howard Sounes

   

Reading this book, listening to his post-Beatles music, it's hard to disagree with David Puttnam – that Paul McCartney is a man of "immense, immense, immense talent" unable to make the crucial extra effort that would transform the merely good into the exceptional. "Was it that it was too hard, was it that it was too challenging? Or was it that he was a reasonably contented guy and he didn't think it was worth putting himself through that amount of pain? But the difference between good and great is that last 15%."

A natural musician with an astonishing gift for melody, McCartney has indeed got by on talent rather than effort. Moreover, he has (like many celebrities) surrounded himself with yes-men whose place at "court" depends on their paying suitable obeisance.

In Beatle days, competition with the outspoken John Lennon was a healthy game-raiser, and the schoolmasterly George Martin was always in the control room. After the Beatles, McCartney appears rarely to have felt the need for advice: members of Wings were hired hands, paid (mostly poorly) to obey His Master's Voice, while wife Linda, scarcely a musical bone in her body, acted as cheerleader-in-chief. The vast quantities of dope they consumed surely blunted their critical faculties. Linda arrived at the hearing for one of their many drug busts "stoned out of her mind", according to their lawyer, Len Murray.

Puttnam and Murray are among some 220 people with whom Howard Sounes talked or corresponded for what he believes is "a better-balanced, more detailed and more comprehensive life" than any so far. Some provide further fragments for the jigsaw (Ravi Shankar, John Tavener, Carla Lane) but others (Ken Dodd, Bruce Forsyth, Jeffrey Archer) have nothing illuminating to offer.

The likes of Astrid Kirchherr and Jûrgen Vollmer are long talked-out, though we haven't previously heard from Imelda Marcos, whose treatment of the Beatles in the Philippines led to their decision to quit touring.

Those most likely to add to the story – Ringo Starr, the McCartney children, Jane Asher – remain silent. It's a credit to Asher that she has said nothing since 21 July 1968 when, questioned about her engagement by chat-show host Simon Dee, she replied: "I haven't broken it off, but it's finished."

McCartney was, from the get-go, the most ambitious Beatle, convinced from an early age that he would be famous. He was arrogant, turning up late for the meeting with Brian Epstein that would seal their future.

He found happiness with Linda Eastman, a groupie who determined she would marry him, and his grief at her death propelled him into the chilly embrace of Heather Mills. Their brief entanglement occupies fully 10% of Fab.

This is little more than a thorough scissors-and-paste study which draws heavily on Barry Miles's authorised biography. Still, it's a good read for those seeking a Pauline perspective on the Beatles plus a look at his solo career.

FAB: An Intimate Life of Paul McCartney
By Howard Sounes
Harper Collins, £20, 563PP

well, I completely agree- what a waste, he was too contented and Linda was a real groupie who  got pregnant on purpose to get married, Jane A. was too honest....
Paul's talent, nothing more after Abbey road and Two of us.
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: Kevin on October 21, 2010, 02:54:36 PM
well, I completely agree- what a waste, he was too contented and Linda was a real groupie who  got pregnant on purpose to get married, Jane A. was too honest....
Paul's talent, nothing more after Abbey road and Two of us.
Come come. In his solo career he has amassed 21 top ten uk albums (7 at #1) and 15/6 in the US. He has had 24 top ten UK singles (4 at #1) and 18/9 in the US.
He has recieved 4 American Music Awards, 8 Brits and 10 Grammys.
And all this has included rock songs, ballads, childrens songs, soundtracks, classical and avante garde releases.

It's safe to say Paul has never wanted, or tried to be, judged as either a guru or political spokesman. He has always wanted to be judged as an entertainer, and I think his record shows him as being very successful. He has never wanted to give us any kind of message (except the one-off Give Ireland back To The irish), so any accusations of triteness (which the bugger can achieve with annoying regularity) just aren't relevant when talking about his talent. If popularity is where his talents have been directed, then we must deduce from the evidence available  that he has been very talented indeed.
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: Kevin on October 21, 2010, 03:11:26 PM
deleted
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: Ovi on October 21, 2010, 04:45:09 PM
well, I completely agree- what a waste, he was too contented and Linda was a real groupie who  got pregnant on purpose to get married, Jane A. was too honest....
Paul's talent, nothing more after Abbey road and Two of us.

Yeah right....
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: Kevin on October 22, 2010, 08:44:21 AM
Thought about this a little. Bearing in mind that measuring the "quality" of music is a very subjective thing, I think it's safe to say that in most people's minds the bulk of The Beatles solo efforts fall short of the standard they reached when they were together.
I think it's also safe to say that most people would hesitate to say that the decline in Lennon and Harrison's work was due to lack of effort. We probably would site other factors. Therefore I don't see how it's so easy to level this accusation at McCartney.
Now here's what I think. Beatles music is so enjoyable because the band was in the unique position of having two top drawer songwriters and singers, both at the top of their game at the same time. Other bands with songwriting duo's seem to be either collaboraters like Jagger/Richards or  Waters/Gilmour where one is always dominant over the other. But with The Beatles we never had to endure an album filled entirely with McCartneys mawkish sentimentality, Lennon's self-pitying dirges or Harrison's sanctimonous preaching.
I think the truth is that outside the pressure pot of The Beatles all three are exposed as being very human and for the first time their musical shortcomings are exposed. McCartney can be a crooning, twee little bugger, Lennon can be a squeeky self-obsessed prat and Harrison really was only good for two decent songs a year.
The only real difference is that McCartney continued to sell. That might be the only measure of quality (and therefore talent) we have. And in 1966 Herman's Hermits were outselling The Beatles by bucket loads. Tis a dangerous road to tred.
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: tkitna on October 22, 2010, 09:03:56 AM
He has never wanted to give us any kind of message (except the one-ogg Give Ireland back To The irish)

Lets not forget 'Looking Out For Changes'. Paul really grew some nuts with that one.  ha2ha

Nah, i'm enjoying your posts Kevin and seemingly agreeing with them too. You've pretty much hit the nail on the head in this thread. (damn, that rhymed. Maybe I should be a song writer)
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: glass onion on October 22, 2010, 03:56:23 PM
Come come. In his solo career he has amassed 21 top ten uk albums (7 at #1) and 15/6 in the US. He has had 24 top ten UK singles (4 at #1) and 18/9 in the US.
He has recieved 4 American Music Awards, 8 Brits and 10 Grammys.
And all this has included rock songs, ballads, childrens songs, soundtracks, classical and avante garde releases.


i think i agree with this bit here..............














Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: carlacundari on October 23, 2010, 10:02:26 AM
I guess he has some points. But how does he differentiate between good and exceptional. Like always it's a matter of taste. He doesn't really say why.
I think McCartney peaked as a songwriter between 65 and 67. As the 70's progressed almost all of the sixties greats found their music declining in popularity (and I guess relevance) as they grew older.
But yes - Macca is almost universally criticised for the supposed lack of substance in hios work. But really, find me any great sixties act turning out exceptional music in 1976. Weren't Paperback Writer, Eleanor Rigby, Sgt Pepper, Penny Lane and Hey Jude exceptional enough>
IMO McCartney, Harrison and Lennon were all off the boil by the mid 70's. The difference with McCartney, despite him being one the uncoolest, ridiculed acts of the decade, was that he still sold records.

have u noticed thAT HE NOWADAYS PERFORMS MOSTLY HIS bEATLE SONGS, ONLY 2 OR 3 FROM wINGS TIME.
iT MEANS HE KNOWS THAT THAT STUFF WAS JUST CRAP.
i WATCHED HIS 2002 TOUR IN us ON tv YESTERDAY.
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: carlacundari on October 23, 2010, 10:07:56 AM
Come come. In his solo career he has amassed 21 top ten uk albums (7 at #1) and 15/6 in the US. He has had 24 top ten UK singles (4 at #1) and 18/9 in the US.
He has recieved 4 American Music Awards, 8 Brits and 10 Grammys.
And all this has included rock songs, ballads, childrens songs, soundtracks, classical and avante garde releases.

It's safe to say Paul has never wanted, or tried to be, judged as either a guru or political spokesman. He has always wanted to be judged as an entertainer, and I think his record shows him as being very successful. He has never wanted to give us any kind of message (except the one-off Give Ireland back To The irish), so any accusations of triteness (which the bugger can achieve with annoying regularity) just aren't relevant when talking about his talent. If popularity is where his talents have been directed, then we must deduce from the evidence available  that he has been very talented indeed.


i'M TALKING ABOUT TALENT, NOT POPULARITY-i ALSO LOVE wE CAN WORK IT OUT
AND i LOVE HER AND SOME OTHERS-

mcCARTNEY I ,TOO-
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: Kevin on October 23, 2010, 10:09:20 AM

i'M TALKING ABOUT TALENT, NOT POPULARITY-i ALSO LOVE wE CAN WORK IT OUT
AND i LOVE HER AND SOME OTHERS-

mcCARTNEY I ,TOO-

And how do you measure talent then?









Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: Kevin on October 23, 2010, 10:13:25 AM
have u noticed thAT HE NOWADAYS PERFORMS MOSTLY HIS bEATLE SONGS, ONLY 2 OR 3 FROM wINGS TIME.
iT MEANS HE KNOWS THAT THAT STUFF WAS JUST CRAP.
i WATCHED HIS 2002 TOUR IN us ON tv YESTERDAY.

Really? A quick check of a recent setlist shows that just over half the songs performed were from The Beatles, with several of those being John and George songs.

Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: Kevin on October 23, 2010, 10:21:29 AM
A set list from that tour (2002). Maybe you were watching an edited version?

Hello Goodbye
Jet
All My Loving
Getting Better
Coming Up
Let Me Roll It
Lonely Road
Driving Rain
Your Loving Flame
Blackbird
Every Night
We Can Work It Out
Mother Nature's Son
Vanilla Sky
You Never Give Me Your Money/ Carry That Weight
Fool On The Hill
Here Today
Something
Eleanor Rigby
Here There and Everywhere
Band On The Run
Back In The U.S.S.R.
Maybe I'm Amazed
C Moon
My Love
Can't Buy Me Love
Freedom
Live and Let Die
Let It Be
Hey Jude

First "Encore":
The Long and Winding Road
Lady Madonna
I Saw Her Standing There

Second "Encore":
Yesterday
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band
The End
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: Bobber on October 23, 2010, 11:07:11 AM

i'M TALKING ABOUT TALENT, NOT POPULARITY-i ALSO LOVE wE CAN WORK IT OUT
AND i LOVE HER AND SOME OTHERS-

mcCARTNEY I ,TOO-

Can you please switch off your caps lock? It looks as if you're shouting.
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: Kevin on October 23, 2010, 11:16:34 AM

i'M TALKING ABOUT TALENT, NOT POPULARITY-i ALSO LOVE wE CAN WORK IT OUT
AND i LOVE HER AND SOME OTHERS-

mcCARTNEY I ,TOO-

I will reiterate a point I made earlier. It seems to be the general view that much of McCartneys solo work doesn't measure up to the dizzying heights of what he produced with The Beatles. But the same is true with almost every act from the sixties - Lwennon, Harrison, Dylan, The Stones, Beach Boys......
Yet no one accuses them of "wasting their talent." I would guess that most people would agree that the sad truth is that all of them were getting old and had passed their creative peak.
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: glass onion on October 23, 2010, 02:09:01 PM
surely nobody who appreciates good music could say that pauls' output in the days with wings was 'crap'?.it is a well worn out expression,but paul along with the other 3 really did have a lot to live up to after the beatles days.i cannot think of a single person who does think that pauls' work with wings is actually better than his work in the beatles.but i tell you something-give me 'mccartney',or 'ram',or 'london town'to listen to, over 'for sale'or ' with the beatles' any day of the week.there is a lot to be said about pauls' songwriting during his solo and wings career.talent is getting to the top and bloody staying there.a pretty face may last a year or two?i'd say macca lasted a few years longer than that,and though he may not be selling as many of his new albums nowadays,but from 70'thru till maybe 78' the releases were still there or thereabouts and the top end of record sales were they not?i do not believe that is down to popularity alone,it must have something to do with decent songwriting.

p.s-i am a huge paul fan-my views are gonna be biased for him,and i don't like all of his stuff,granted-but the good outweighs the bad.
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: nimrod on October 30, 2010, 12:00:58 AM
Quote from Kevin;

Quote
I think it's safe to say that in most people's minds the bulk of The Beatles solo efforts fall short of the standard they reached when they were together

Whilst I would say that is true...

Ive thought a lot about it and I think its a bit unfair really, a lot of the reasons I prefer Beatles songs to the solo stuff is that the other 3 were playing/singing on the record whereas the solo stuff had inferior (at least to me) musicians/singers.

When The other Beatles actually played on a solo composition it sounded (to me) as good as other Beatle stuff, Im thinking of Free As A Bird & Real Love in particular.

I think a lot of the solo output was done in such a way that J,P & G tried to avoid sounding like The Beatles, so IMO thats why it didnt sound as good to me (as a huge Beatle fan) but had the others played on something like Im Losing You, it wouldve sounded as good as a lot of Beatle stuff.
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: Kevin on November 01, 2010, 02:11:23 PM
Quote from Kevin;

Whilst I would say that is true...

Ive thought a lot about it and I think its a bit unfair really, a lot of the reasons I prefer Beatles songs to the solo stuff is that the other 3 were playing/singing on the record whereas the solo stuff had inferior (at least to me) musicians/singers.

I think a lot of the solo output was done in such a way that J,P & G tried to avoid sounding like The Beatles, so IMO thats why it didnt sound as good to me (as a huge Beatle fan) but had the others played on something like Im Losing You, it wouldve sounded as good as a lot of Beatle stuff.

Gidday. I don't know, but I think most people would happily swap George for Clapton or McCullough. But I think you said it..this is your view as a huge Beatles fan. You really like Beatles music (as do we all) and really really want anything J,P & G do as solo artists to sound like The Beatles (as do we all.). As Lennon and Harrison were forced to accept (and what McCartney always seems to have understood) is that the world didn't want to listen to an angry political agitator or a sanctimonous preacher.
So nothing they do as solo artists will every really please us. Which really goes to show its nearly impossible to measure quality or talent, but it really depends what you find most satisfying.
So I reckon all we really have is sales, which reflects what people thought at the time.) But by that criterea The Monkees would have more talent than The Beatles.)
And the other thing is general opinion. And I think it's fair to say that the general opinion is that the bulk of their solo work doesn't match the quality of their Beatle work.
I think having two (and a third) exceptional, distinctive yet complimenting songwriters and two excellent, powerful, distinctive, enigmatic vocally powerful, front men was the combination that made Beatles music its real quality.
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: Bobber on November 02, 2010, 08:05:41 AM
Well, looking at sales one cannot state that McCartney really blew his talent. He might have got more respect if he had experimented a bit more. On the other hand, when he did (McCartney II)...  He got back on the commercial track immediately and in a style that most of us don't really like either (Ebony And Ivory, Say Say Say).
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: tkitna on November 02, 2010, 06:47:45 PM
I like 'Say Say Say'.

(http://i564.photobucket.com/albums/ss88/SilentWolf8979/Smileys/smiley-scared004.gif)
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: Bobber on November 02, 2010, 07:45:06 PM
I like 'Say Say Say'.

([url]http://i564.photobucket.com/albums/ss88/SilentWolf8979/Smileys/smiley-scared004.gif[/url])


Well, some people bought the record I presume. But it is not regarded as THE showcase for Paul's talent I suppose.
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: glass onion on November 02, 2010, 10:06:50 PM
i quite like the whole of the 'pipes of peace' album.then again i also quite like 'press to play'. ;sorry
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: nimrod on November 03, 2010, 10:43:28 PM
And the other thing is general opinion. And I think it's fair to say that the general opinion is that the bulk of their solo work doesn't match the quality of their Beatle work.

I agree thats the general opinion but as I say I think its unfair, Its just the others wernt playing on them and it didnt sound...erm Beatle-ish......ie. if some of Pauls songs had had Johns backing vocals that couldve made that song all the better (as on MMT) same of course goes for John's stuff................also I could (anybody could) interchange some tracks from the White Album with solo tracks and probably make it better

Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: Ahme on November 04, 2010, 09:30:16 AM
In the Band on the run documentary Paul stated that he was really searching for another sound, tat is diferent than The beatles sounded. With Bnad on the Run he finally found it, he said. I feel that after the competition of John's solo output was stopped (in1975), Paul also quit trying to make an outstanding record like Band on the Run
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: Kevin on November 04, 2010, 02:49:45 PM
I feel that after the competition of John's solo output was stopped (in1975), Paul also quit trying to make an outstanding record like Band on the Run
Despite the complete lack of evidence? Because Venus and Mars and Back To The Egg aren't regarded as being good as Band On the Run we presume it was because he wasn't really trying anymore? Sourcing new band members, trying to change his sound, entering into collaborations with other artists, stretching himself in to different genres would I think point to the fact that McCartney was still trying very hard indeed. The evidence seems to point to the fact that McCartney, despite his continued best efforts, wasn't turning out the same quality of product because he wasn't able to.
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: glass onion on November 04, 2010, 03:15:16 PM
Despite the complete lack of evidence? Because Venus and Mars and Back To The Egg aren't regarded as being good as Band On the Run we presume it was because he wasn't really trying anymore? Sourcing new band members, trying to change his sound, entering into collaborations with other artists, stretching himself in to different genres would I think point to the fact that McCartney was still trying very hard indeed. The evidence seems to point to the fact that McCartney, despite his continued best efforts, wasn't turning out the same quality of product because he wasn't able to.
do you think kev that maybe paul was always gonna be fighting a losing battle to stay at the top towards the late 70s due to the fact that artists/songwriters have a limited shelf life,so to speak?i read somewhere that the time limit for a band to be 'at the top' was 4 years.the reason this didn't apply to the beatles was that they were effectively two different acts;the touring act,and the studio band.really they kind of re-invented themselves without knowingly doing it.so going back to paul and wings,from band on the run(1973)to wings over america,or mull of kintyre time,was a time span of 4 years or thereabouts.
it can also be argued that there were wings albums after b.o.t.r that were just as good-however,as the late great jimmy sirrell used to say,......"that is all opinion".in my opinion give me london town over b.o.t.r anytime.by the time of that album though, it can be argued that the british record buying public had other albums and singles to buy than wings records.
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: Kevin on November 04, 2010, 03:32:43 PM
do you think kev that maybe paul was always gonna be fighting a losing battle to stay at the top towards the late 70s due to the fact that artists/songwriters have a limited shelf life,so to speak?

Yep. And I think we can back that up with some rather good evidence, rather than wishful thinking. As the 70's turned in to the 80's what was, or is, perceived as "quality" output by sixties acts was a rarety, not a norm. They couldn't all have given up trying, and we have no reason to presume McCartney (or Lennon and Harrison) were any different.
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: tkitna on November 05, 2010, 01:58:30 AM
I feel that after the competition of John's solo output was stopped (in1975), Paul also quit trying to make an outstanding record like Band on the Run

Thats just dumb. So Paul just hashed up any old tunes and threw them on a record and said there you are?

Also, why is it always about a competition between Paul and John when we talk about their solo output? I think its way overblown to be honest. Artists go into a studio with an idea and they try to construct it. If it turns out well, great. If it doesnt, back to the drawing board. I seriously doubt they sat on their  living room floors thinking of ways to constantly outdo each other.
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: Bobber on November 05, 2010, 08:11:00 AM
Mmm, I don't know. There were each other's musical inspiration and rivals for more than ten years. You can't just stop that by quitting the band. I'm pretty sure Paul's mind was puzzling how to deal Plastic Ono Band and Imagine and John surely has been listening to Ram and Red Rose Speedway. Out of sight, but I'm pretty sure not out of mind. Maybe not with full conscious (sp?), but I believe they were still inspiring each other more or less in the early 70's. John's stop in 1975 might have had an impact on Paul.
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: tkitna on November 05, 2010, 10:20:18 AM
Now i'm sure when they came up with something really cool, they wondered what the other would think of it, but to actually say they sat and tried to outdo the other everytime they made a record is a bit presumptuous. I dont remember either of them admitting as much either.
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: carlacundari on December 08, 2010, 03:13:15 PM
Well, according to FAB that is. Read the book review below. Your thoughts?

Book Review - FAB: An Intimate Life of Paul McCartney
Live and let die
Paul McCartney, the most ambitious Beatle, blew his great talent when he went solo, writes Liz Thomson
FAB: An Intimate Life of Paul McCartney By Howard Sounes

    

Reading this book, listening to his post-Beatles music, it's hard to disagree with David Puttnam – that Paul McCartney is a man of "immense, immense, immense talent" unable to make the crucial extra effort that would transform the merely good into the exceptional. "Was it that it was too hard, was it that it was too challenging? Or was it that he was a reasonably contented guy and he didn't think it was worth putting himself through that amount of pain? But the difference between good and great is that last 15%."

A natural musician with an astonishing gift for melody, McCartney has indeed got by on talent rather than effort. Moreover, he has (like many celebrities) surrounded himself with yes-men whose place at "court" depends on their paying suitable obeisance.

In Beatle days, competition with the outspoken John Lennon was a healthy game-raiser, and the schoolmasterly George Martin was always in the control room. After the Beatles, McCartney appears rarely to have felt the need for advice: members of Wings were hired hands, paid (mostly poorly) to obey His Master's Voice, while wife Linda, scarcely a musical bone in her body, acted as cheerleader-in-chief. The vast quantities of dope they consumed surely blunted their critical faculties. Linda arrived at the hearing for one of their many drug busts "stoned out of her mind", according to their lawyer, Len Murray.

Puttnam and Murray are among some 220 people with whom Howard Sounes talked or corresponded for what he believes is "a better-balanced, more detailed and more comprehensive life" than any so far. Some provide further fragments for the jigsaw (Ravi Shankar, John Tavener, Carla Lane) but others (Ken Dodd, Bruce Forsyth, Jeffrey Archer) have nothing illuminating to offer.

The likes of Astrid Kirchherr and Jûrgen Vollmer are long talked-out, though we haven't previously heard from Imelda Marcos, whose treatment of the Beatles in the Philippines led to their decision to quit touring.

Those most likely to add to the story – Ringo Starr, the McCartney children, Jane Asher – remain silent. It's a credit to Asher that she has said nothing since 21 July 1968 when, questioned about her engagement by chat-show host Simon Dee, she replied: "I haven't broken it off, but it's finished."

McCartney was, from the get-go, the most ambitious Beatle, convinced from an early age that he would be famous. He was arrogant, turning up late for the meeting with Brian Epstein that would seal their future.

He found happiness with Linda Eastman, a groupie who determined she would marry him, and his grief at her death propelled him into the chilly embrace of Heather Mills. Their brief entanglement occupies fully 10% of Fab.

This is little more than a thorough scissors-and-paste study which draws heavily on Barry Miles's authorised biography. Still, it's a good read for those seeking a Pauline perspective on the Beatles plus a look at his solo career.

FAB: An Intimate Life of Paul McCartney
By Howard Sounes
Harper Collins, £20, 563PP

yes, he surely blew his talent, he had no John to compete with-
John also blew his talent after he had   met Yoko-
Linda maybe   destroyed Paul's genius-
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: glass onion on December 08, 2010, 03:57:38 PM
it's a big assumption to make that paul blew his talent ,in any shape or form.in a nutshell i'd say it was a silly thing to say altogether.if anybody here can name me one single serious music act with a large body of work(4,5,6 albums,say)who has consistently put out work that each time/album has been as strong or stronger than their last album with NO filler at all then i will hold my hands up and say that macca definitely blew his talent.you can take elvis,the kinks,the stones,led zep,the who,anyone you like.the very nature of songwriting itself is that you do actually shoot wide of the mark from time to time,and you produce something you think is good,but your public think is not so good.this is what happened with paul......and john.........and george............i could go on........and on............and on............even the beatles did it with 'for sale' and 'let it be'.
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: nyfan(41) on December 08, 2010, 08:25:55 PM
Linda maybe   destroyed Paul's genius-
-
 ha2ha ^ this i kind of agree with. watered it down for sure, lol  ;D
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: Ovi on December 08, 2010, 08:31:04 PM
Linda maybe   destroyed Paul's genius-

Nonsense.
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: fanofthefab4 on December 11, 2010, 11:31:03 AM
have u noticed thAT HE NOWADAYS PERFORMS MOSTLY HIS bEATLE SONGS, ONLY 2 OR 3 FROM wINGS TIME.
iT MEANS HE KNOWS THAT THAT STUFF WAS JUST CRAP.
i WATCHED HIS 2002 TOUR IN us ON tv YESTERDAY.

*Totally Untrue*! Infact in his great 1986 interview by Barbara Hower from Entertainment this week,she asked him about his Wings music and he said when he was in it he was giving it his best efforts and best shot,but at the time he felt he couldn't measure up and follow what The Beatles were and did,and so he said he really didn't appreciate his Wings music that much at the time,but now looking back and listening to it,he said a lot of is quite good.And on his massive successful 1976 Wings Over America tour,he only played *5* Beatles songs,all of the rest were Wings songs and hits.He still plays quite a few Wings songs in concerts now,and he has recently released remasters of a lot of his 1970's Wings albums including the great Venus and Mars and the very good Band On The Run.
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: nimrod on December 11, 2010, 11:34:28 AM
I actually thought Wings music was rubbish, far below what Paul was capable of and a million miles what he wrote in the Beatles, whether that was down to Linda Ive no idea, I liked his 1st McCartney album though.
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: fanofthefab4 on December 11, 2010, 11:43:27 AM
I actually thought Wings music was rubbish, far below what Paul was capable of and a million miles what he wrote in the Beatles, whether that was down to Linda Ive no idea, I liked his 1st McCartney album though.


The Band On The Run Album,which has been critically acclaimed for years,the very good Red Rose Speedway,and his great rock album Venus and Mars *aren't* "rubbish"!

 Paul won 13 grammy awards in his solo career,a doctorate of music from Sussex University in 1988 and a doctorate from Yale in 2008,and he has been in the Guiness Book of World Records since October 1979 when he got a special award as the most successful song composer of all time!

 
His early -mid 1970’s music was his best post Beatles music,his first solo album McCartney where he played every instrument by himself for the first time is a good album and he played so many instruments great,and he played every instrument again 10 years later on McCartney 2 (although I don’t like that album)his Wings albums REd Rose Speedway and Band On The Run are very good and only he and Denny Laine played every instrument on this album,and the 1975 Wings rock album Venus and Mars is a great album and he produced all of these albums too.There are 3 great songs on his second solo album Ram,Too Many People is a great rocker,Uncle Albert is brilliant and Back Seat of My Car is also very good.

 

Paul was also already playing the guitar and writing his own songs at only 14 and started to soon after his mother Mary who was a nurse and a midwife died of breast cancer and he wrote the beautiful song Let It Be about her after he saw her alive in a realistic dream he had 12 years after she died,and she told him in this dream to just accept things as they are.He said in his authorized biography Many Years From Now that when he woke up he thought how wonderful it was to see her again.He also wrote the pretty song I’ll Follow The Sun when he was only 16.



And Paul also played most of the instruments on his 1997 Flaming Pie album, and his 2 recent acclaimed popular albums, Chaos And Creation In The Backyard, and Memory Almost Full. And John Paul Jones, David Gilmore, John Bonham & Pete Townsend all played on 2 songs with Paul and Wings on the last Wings album Back To The Egg, in 1979, and they played in the last Wings concert too in December 1979.


Bob Dylan praised John,Paul and George in a 2007 Rolling Stone Magazine interview and said George Harrison was a very talented song writer in his own right but he said that he got stuck being the Beatles who had to fight to get his songs on their records because of Lennon and McCartney and he said well who wouldn’t get stuck?

 

Bob also said that there were no better singers than John Lennon was and Paul was and still is and he said he’s in awe of Paul McCartney and he said he’s about the only one he’s in awe of and he said Paul can do it all,that he’s so damn effortless and that he’s never let up.



Paul also won quite a few Ivor Novello awards in his solo career. Obviously anyone claiming this nonsense couldn’t possibly have heard most of Paul’s music,he did a lot of great diverse music including a lot of great rockers even some hard rock in the early-mid 1970’s before and during early Wings which I think is his best post Beatles music period 1970-1975(the great 1975 Wings rock album Venus and Mars I think is last true great album)and he wrote and played a lot of great obscure album tracks and B-sides many which were better than the well known hits,although I like the hits too.Beware My Love for exampleis a great less known heavy Paul rocker and it’s the best song on the 1976 Wings At The Speed Of Sound album,Wings performed a pretty good rocking version on the very good live rock Wings album,Wings Over America.



And John also wrote in addition to a lot of great rockers,some very sentimental songs even a few mushy did you ever hear his song, One Day At A Time for Yoko on his Mind Games album? As The All Music Guide rightfully says and points out,that the critical party line often champions Lennon as the angry realist rocker and McCartney as the melodic balladeer but they say this is a fallacy:each of them was capable in roughly equal measures of ballsy all-out rock and sweet romanticism.


There are many Beatles song examples of this too,Paul even wrote some of their earliest very good rockers,I Saw Her Standing There in 1963 which many people have said is a very good rocker,I’m Down which the all music guide calls a peerless and one of the most frantic rockers in their entire catalog,and they said The Beatles proved that they could rock really really hard with this song,John’s I Feel Fine and Paul’s late 1964 blues rocker,She’s A Woman which they said was one of the hardest rocking early Beatles orginals and they said McCartney to often unfairly pegged as a sweet balladeer demonstrates that he was also one of the best white rock hard singers of all time with his shrill yet rich even ballsy vocal.

He also wrote a lot of very good rock songs in their later career as did John but John also wrote quite a few beautiful love songs as well.

 


Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: fanofthefab4 on December 11, 2010, 12:10:34 PM

For anyone to say or think that Venus & Mars is not a good album(and thank God that by the majority of great reviews on Amazon.com and eslewhere for this album,they are very clearly much in the minority!) has to be deaf & dumb! This is one of the *GREATEST* solo/Wings Paul albums he ever did! It's great and it's Beatles quality because every song is very good & if anyone wants to know what a true music genuis Paul really is,just listen to the *music* in the great Letting Go!
 
My mother only liked classical music,Beethoven,Bach & Mozart,no rock & she played their music on the piano.When I was playing this album and she came into the room when Letting Go was on,she asked me is that Paul MCCartney and I said yes and she said Oh that music is brilliant,he's a music genuis like Beethoven!
 
And my sister who is 4 years older than me and had a big diverse music collection since she was a mid teen,bought Venus and Mars when it came out,and I remember listening to it with her,and her friend and my best friend and we all loved it! My sister still says years later that Venus and Mars is one of the best rock albums she ever heard and that it's unique and she knows no album like it!She always said his 1971 Ram album was a very good album too,although I like this album much better. Paul's best post Beatles sounding music was from 1970-1975,with this being his last true great album.After this he wrote some good music but he never wrote the same great
quality music again for some reason.
 
His first solo album McCartney where he played every instrument by himself (and  he played them all great) is very good,Red Rose Speeday and Band On The Run are very good albums too,and he produced all of these great albums by himself and co-arranged the music on Venus and Mars by him self also.Pete Townsend and Phil Collins,(who has always been a huge Beatles fan since he was in the concert audience at age 13 in The Beatles great first movie,A Hard Day's Night) both also played on Paul's 1986 Press To Play album,although I have never heard it,I know it along with Pipes Of Peace are generally not considered his better albums.
 

 
       
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: fanofthefab4 on December 11, 2010, 12:15:19 PM
 
 
Paul wrote so many very good and great *rock* songs in the early-mid 1970's and he's one of the most diverse versatile music artists ever!
 
Some years ago a friend of mine lent me a book that came out in 1975 about The Beatles solo years and it said Paul was the most successful solo Beatle.And they said that the B-side of the (Great!) love song My Love was this great noisy hard rocker,The Mess recorded live in The Hague with Wings in August 1972 and they rightfully said that it just demonstrated how truly diverse and versatile Paul really is,and they said it's hard to believe these two songs are done by the same music artist the same year!
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: fanofthefab4 on December 11, 2010, 12:18:13 PM
 The Band On The Run album is a very good album. Bluebird is actually a very pretty song,and only Paul McCartney can make a song about Bluebirds,Dragon Flies,and Pigeon so beautiful,it's his *music genuis* more than lyrics which for him is usually the case.Band on The Run is a great song,that has three parts in one in it,and it turns into a great rocker,and only Paul and Denny Laine play all of the instruments great in every song on the album,and Paul's bass,lead guitar,piano playing and vocals are all great as usual.The song Band On The Run,isn't silly either,I have heard other reviewers point out that it's about escaping,and having freedom,which someone once pointed out this is what Bluebird  is also about.
 
 
1985 is as other people have described it,a Great piano rocker,and I have always loved Jet from the time I heard it when it first came out when I was in third grade.I love his great rocker Juinor's Farm which came out almost a year later though too.
 
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: fanofthefab4 on December 11, 2010, 12:50:25 PM
Also, my first cousin who was born in 1968(who is a lawyer) and is big Beatles fan and calls them the best band that ever was,said to me many years ago that he's not much of a Paul solo fan.I lent him my Paul McCartney CD's from his best period(his father already owned the Band On The Run album for many years),McCartney,Ram,Red Rose Speedway and Venus and Mars.After he listened to them he told me there were a lot of very good songs he had never heard before,and others that he liked but hadn't heard in a long time,like Uncle Albert and Too Many People.

His older brother who is also a lawyer born in 62 and who is also a big Beatles fan,but said he's more of a Lennon fan,said after I named a lot of very good Paul songs from his early solo/Wings career including the great song,Every Night on his first good solo album,McCartney,he started to sing it and he said,yeah McCartney has written a lot of great songs.Their oldest brother born in 60(and their sister born in early 64 and their parents have also always been Beatles fans) also liked a lot of what he heard on these Paul CD's including on REd Rose Speedway.
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: tkitna on December 12, 2010, 11:17:05 AM
For anyone to say or think that Venus & Mars is not a good album(and thank God that by the majority of great reviews on Amazon.com and eslewhere for this album,they are very clearly much in the minority!) has to be deaf & dumb!

Call me deaf and dumb then because its far from one of my favorites that he did. I think its uneven and mediocre at best with lousy production. Sorry.
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: nimrod on December 15, 2010, 12:27:51 AM
Quote
The Band On The Run Album,which has been critically acclaimed for years,the very good Red Rose Speedway,and his great rock album Venus and Mars *aren't* "rubbish"!

I only said I think theyre rubbish, maybe theyre not, dont get upset because I dont like them mate...its just my opinion.

I was a huge PM fan when he was with The Beatles, I just think his solo stuff is majorly poppy and twee, and yes IMO 'rubbish' designed IMO to get to No 1 with little girls swooning all over the poppy LP covers. Not my kind of stuff at all. Mull of Kintyre, C Moon, The Frog Chorus etc made me wanna puke, although each album had the odd song that I liked like Tommorow.

I actually thought McCartney was a good album, not commercial with some serious songs which I believe were written for the Beatles when he was with The Beatles so maybe thats the reason why, songs like Teddy Boy & Junk.
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: maccafan on December 21, 2010, 08:50:21 PM
Paul McCartneys post Beatles material will never ever get the real true credit it more than deserves!  Even when this brilliant man dies it won't!

Here's why, and it's very evident right here on this forum!

Because being a Beatle is so freaking sacred and because so many people have a preconceived notion of what a Beatle should produce and sound like that anything else they do isn't even given a fair chance, it's given a glance, it's mentioned very quickly, but given an honest unbiased very close listen for it's own merits, that seems to very rarely happen.

The totally unfair and unmerciful crucifiction of Paul McCartneys Wings/solo material is almost universally due to an unimaginable and impossible comparison to the Beatles!

It doesn't matter at all that the man has said that he wasn't trying to sound like the Beatles, he was doomed from the start.  I give McCartney major major props for having the guts to do something totally different!

Yet in the 70s this very same music that some just love to put down as low as they possibly can, absolutely ruled the charts!  Wings packed the place wherever they went, and rocked the house, and yes I do mean rocked and rocked hard!  Just crank up Wings Over America and listen to the songs Rockshow, Beware My Love, Hi Hi Hi, and Soily!   

I've never ever baught into the insanity about his post Beatles material, I paid attention, I really listened in spite of what some had to say, and no not every single song is Earth shattering, but I noticed that there was way way more good than bad, and I noticed that McCartneys Wings and solo material is filled with songs that are just as good and better than some Beatle songs.  I know it's the unpardonable sin to say such a thing, but it's the simple truth!  Of course they will never ever get that kind of credit, because of the reasons mentioned above.

How on Earth can anyone say that a man that was in the biggest band on Earth, and then started from scratch with his own new band, and that band became the second biggest band in the entire era of the 70s (only the Bee Gees were Bigger) broke and set world records, had #1 worldwide smash singles and albums, did animation, classical, poems, and paintings, blew his talents!

The very statement is just more of the totally insane and totally inaccurate misconceptions and myths that have been perpetrated about Paul McCartney and his post Beatles career ever since the Beatles broke up!

A total bunch of bull!
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: nyfan(41) on December 21, 2010, 09:43:49 PM
The totally unfair and unmerciful crucifiction of Paul McCartneys Wings/solo material is almost universally due to an unimaginable and impossible comparison to the Beatles!john lennon
;sorry
i'm a big mccartney fan but his music doesn't really make people think as much as it just sounds great


How on Earth can anyone say that a man that was in the biggest band on Earth, and then started from scratch with his own new band, and that band became the second biggest band in the entire era of the 70s (only the Bee Gees were Bigger) broke and set world records, had #1 worldwide smash singles and albums, did animation, classical, poems, and paintings, blew his talents!

you're kind of confusing art and commerce in this paragraph
do sales equal greatness?

i do agree with some of what you're saying
but he's hardly a maligned victim. i mean, he's one of the most beloved entertainers.
people's impression of him is what it is- no matter how loud anyone shouts
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: maccafan on December 21, 2010, 09:56:17 PM
Nyfan, you can say that if you want but who's to say what another person considers art?

Also when did it become a criteria for rock and roll to make someone think?  I listen to music to be entertained, if it has a message great, but that's not a requirement for me to enjoy or like a piece of music!

You posted something that is key, McCartney has produced tons of music that does just what you say, it sounds great!

Now wouldn't it be fantastic if McCartney was given credit for all the post Beatles music that sounds great?  To this very day, that hasn't happened yet!
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: nyfan(41) on December 21, 2010, 10:23:30 PM
Nyfan, you can say that if you want but who's to say what another person considers art?

Also when did it become a criteria for rock and roll to make someone think?  I listen to music to be entertained, if it has a message great, but that's not a requirement for me to enjoy or like a piece of music!

You posted something that is key, McCartney has produced tons of music that does just what you say, it sounds great!

Now wouldn't it be fantastic if McCartney was given credit for all the post Beatles music that sounds great?  To this very day, that hasn't happened yet!

like... what do you mean?.... given what kind of credit by who?
like a global "paul mccartney's-post-beatle's-music-we-the-world-are-sorry-for-underappreciating-you day"?
-
or maybe if newspapers started refering to him as "former wings member paul mccartney" instead of "ex-beatle"
-
hey it could be worse....
they could refer to him as "the guy who was in john lennon's group . . " . .  ha2ha :-\
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: maccafan on December 21, 2010, 10:43:39 PM
Nyfan, absolutely none of that is necessary.

How about the rock critics, journalists, and reviewers for once just giving the guy the real true credit he is due?
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: nyfan(41) on December 21, 2010, 11:06:42 PM
that's the good thing about the internet - we the masses are the new critics !
these self important rock magazines are going out of business left right and center !
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: tkitna on December 22, 2010, 01:15:09 AM
I was ready to pounce on Maccafan because we havent seen eye to eye in the past, but you know what,,,he speaks the truth here. The only thing I will say though is that who cares anymore about how much credit Paul gets? I'm convinced that 98% of the people that review his stuff dont really have a clue. The first thing people do when they slap a McCartney album on is to compare it to the Beatles or Johns solo stuff when neither have any bearing at all.

One more thing i'd like to touch upon is nyfans comment about Pauls music not making people think. Why does music have to make people think? Why cant it just sound good and that be enough? I'll admit that Johns music makes you think. It made me think that John was nothing more than a bitter, depressed person and thats why I hate his solo stuff (well strongly dislike it). Not all songs need to be a riddle.
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: Joost on December 22, 2010, 02:28:51 AM
Paul McCartneys post Beatles material will never ever get the real true credit it more than deserves!  Even when this brilliant man dies it won't!

No offense... But I can think of dozens of artists who never got the credit they deserved... And Paul McCartney, with 12 post-Beatles #1 hits, sales of about 100 million post-Beatles records, and the best-selling non-charity single of all time in the UK ('Mull of Kintyre'), is not one of them.
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: nimrod on December 22, 2010, 03:18:53 AM
No offense... But I can think of dozens of artists who never got the credit they deserved... And Paul McCartney, with 12 post-Beatles #1 hits, sales of about 100 million post-Beatles records, and the best-selling non-charity single of all time in the UK ('Mull of Kintyre'), is not one of them.

 ha2ha

he wasnt exactly a cult artist was he ?

I think he was very popular with young girls like the early Beatles and like Michael Jackson and Donny Osmond were in the 70's (he even released a single with MJ), but for me, a grown man who was into serious music like prog rock and Jazz fusion what he produced in the 70's was nothing more than teenybopper music, as I said his albums had the odd good song like Tommorow but more often than not it was what someone termed 'bubblegum music'
I remember buying Bnad On The Run and trying my best to like it but ended up giving up on it. Ive re-listened all these years later and I still think it is terrible, just my opnion though.
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: maccafan on December 22, 2010, 07:51:59 PM
Nimrod, you can call McCartneys 70s music teenybopper if you like, but all those record breaking and record setting crowds were full of hard core rockers, I know because I saw plenty of them with my own eyes!

Led Zeppelins John Bonham was right up front at many of Wings shows and absolutely and totally into it and loving every single note they performed, I'm willing to bet he didn't think it was teenybopper music!

I saw hard core Bikers at the show rocking out with Wings, in fact everywhere Wings went the rock crowds absolutely packed the house to see them!  I don't think all these people thought Wings was teenybopper music!

Anyone who thinks McCartneys 70s output is teenybopper hasn't really listened.  What's teenybopper about songs like...

Give Ireland Back To The Irish
Oh Woman Oh Why
Hi Hi Hi
Juniors Farm
Helen Wheels
Old Siam Sir
Rockshow
Soily
Jet
Beware My Love
Girlschool
I've Had Enough
Call Me BAck Again
Rockestra Theme
So Glad To See You Here
One Of These Days
Big Barn Bed
Smile Away
The Mess
Best Friend

McCartney has never gotten the real credit he is due for being a rocker, and if this is what you call teenybopper, I hope McCartney never ever grows up!
 
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: nimrod on December 23, 2010, 02:15:36 AM
Hi maccafan

Just my opinion mate, Im not saying Im right, just how I percieve Wings music, as I say Ive tried to like it as Im a big Macca fan, I think he's a genius, but it doesnt work for me, I love the stuff he did with The Beatles (and McCartney 1) and he's one of the best bass players ever, but I just cant force myself to like Wings.

I admire the way you stick up for him though  ;)
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: maccafan on December 23, 2010, 07:40:08 PM
Nimrod, if you have a copy of Wings Over America, pull it out, crank up your system and give it a really good listen, I think you may enjoy what you hear.
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: Hello Goodbye on December 23, 2010, 09:33:00 PM
I bought Wings Over America the day it was released, on vinyl.  I still enjoy putting it on the old turntable, cranking up the volume and listening to Wings at their best, every bit as much as the first time I did so in 1976.
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: nimrod on January 04, 2011, 10:34:07 PM
Nimrod, if you have a copy of Wings Over America, pull it out, crank up your system and give it a really good listen, I think you may enjoy what you hear.

I have listened to it maccafan.......its rubbish IMO
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: The Swine on January 05, 2011, 08:45:40 AM
I have listened to it maccafan.......its rubbish IMO

its the best thing he did post beatles.
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: glass onion on January 05, 2011, 03:35:52 PM
wings were on top form as a live act around that time.if you are not into wings over america,odds are you're not into paul as an artist outside of the beatles;and there is nothing wrong with that!this is a beatle forum by and large,and we do not need to sell the 4 of them to anybody on this site,as we are all 'fans'.note to maccafan-you are not going to convince nimrod on this one!
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: maccafan on January 07, 2011, 03:48:06 PM
Of course I'm not going to change Nimrods mind, he doesn't want his mind changed, it's made up and that's it period. 

That doesn't change the fact that Wings Over America went #1, and is considered by many to be one of the all time best live rock albums! 

I put it on, crank my Bose system way up and rock out to it all the time!  It's Paul McCartney in his absolute prime, live, loud, and totally rocking!
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: nimrod on January 08, 2011, 02:31:11 AM
wings were on top form as a live act around that time.if you are not into wings over america,odds are you're not into paul as an artist outside of the beatles;and there is nothing wrong with that!this is a beatle forum by and large,and we do not need to sell the 4 of them to anybody on this site,as we are all 'fans'.note to maccafan-you are not going to convince nimrod on this one!

thats right glass onion, I was a big fan of Pauls when he was in the Beatles and I like McCartney 1, Paul did write some silly twee stuff when in the beatles ( Obla Di, Maxwell, Rocky Racoon etc) but it was seldom and it didnt matter as the majority of his songs were fantasticlt great .........but Wings for me was just terrible, and Im gutted that he went down such a commercial poppy path after the serious art form music the beatles eventually created.
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: JimmyMcCullochFan on January 09, 2011, 03:21:41 AM
Why do you think WOA is "rubbish"
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: Mr Mustard on January 09, 2011, 08:00:26 PM
Paul has always tried too hard to please in my opinion, whereas John and George were content to withdraw from the limelight (and, ironically, thereby fuelled their own mystique and became all the more intriguing than the publicity hungry, ubiquitous Macca). Whilst Lennon and Harrison were seemingly less bothered by public reaction to their material beyond a certain point in their careers (I got the impression at times that both would have felt almost embarrassed to be topping the pop charts, they were far too wrapped up in whatever "message" they were trying to explore) Paul has always struck me as needing an audience and a demonstrative show of approval...

but "blowing his talent?" his talent for what? Writing and performing fabulous, radio friendly, populist, timeless songs which sold by the shedload? Wings shifted millions of sales to a public hungry for commercial, accessible pop(ular) music and, in the aftermath of The Beatles, making do with anything from Slade and ELO to The Bee Gees and Abba. Paul's need for audience approval met the public's need for catchy, Beatley records.

Perhaps you'd think that people would have had enough of silly love songs? Well Paul looked around him and saw that it wasn't so. And what's wrong with that?  There is a real "talent" in producing much of the sublime stuff Paul has given us since 1969. It's all too easy to take pot shots at him from some priggish, "enlightened" vantage point, but for every argument lambasting The Frog Chorus or Mull Of Kintyre there is another one which could expose the emperor's clothes snobbery imbuing some of George's more turgid religious diatribes or John's political sloganeering with credibility and gravitas when much of the record buying public thought it was rubbish. The difference being that John and George had a (some might say healthy) "up yours" kind of "take it or leave it" slice of attitude which made them cool and therefore, on some level, more appealing than plodder Paul.

Remember though...just because something gains mass appeal does not automatically make it pap. And at the same time, McCartney was embracing cutting edge influences sometimes ahead of the rest. Bottom line is, The Beatles would ALWAYS be an impossible act to follow. By continually extending his profile and courting publicity, Paul seemed to have the cheek to try, which some find unforgivable.

All just my opinions, you understand.
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: tkitna on January 10, 2011, 03:59:10 AM
Paul has always tried too hard to please in my opinion, whereas John and George were content to withdraw from the limelight (and, ironically, thereby fuelled their own mystique and became all the more intriguing than the publicity hungry, ubiquitous Macca). Whilst Lennon and Harrison were seemingly less bothered by public reaction to their material beyond a certain point in their careers (I got the impression at times that both would have felt almost embarrassed to be topping the pop charts, they were far too wrapped up in whatever "message" they were trying to explore) Paul has always struck me as needing an audience and a demonstrative show of approval...

but "blowing his talent?" his talent for what? Writing and performing fabulous, radio friendly, populist, timeless songs which sold by the shedload? Wings shifted millions of sales to a public hungry for commercial, accessible pop(ular) music and, in the aftermath of The Beatles, making do with anything from Slade and ELO to The Bee Gees and Abba. Paul's need for audience approval met the public's need for catchy, Beatley records.

Perhaps you'd think that people would have had enough of silly love songs? Well Paul looked around him and saw that it wasn't so. And what's wrong with that?  There is a real "talent" in producing much of the sublime stuff Paul has given us since 1969. It's all too easy to take pot shots at him from some priggish, "enlightened" vantage point, but for every argument lambasting The Frog Chorus or Mull Of Kintyre there is another one which could expose the emperor's clothes snobbery imbuing some of George's more turgid religious diatribes or John's political sloganeering with credibility and gravitas when much of the record buying public thought it was rubbish. The difference being that John and George had a (some might say healthy) "up yours" kind of "take it or leave it" slice of attitude which made them cool and therefore, on some level, more appealing than plodder Paul.

Remember though...just because something gains mass appeal does not automatically make it pap. And at the same time, McCartney was embracing cutting edge influences sometimes ahead of the rest. Bottom line is, The Beatles would ALWAYS be an impossible act to follow. By continually extending his profile and courting publicity, Paul seemed to have the cheek to try, which some find unforgivable.

All just my opinions, you understand.


(http://i53.tinypic.com/2aahq0x.gif)

Well said. This post should end this thread.
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: Bobber on January 10, 2011, 08:49:28 AM
Bottom line is, The Beatles would ALWAYS be an impossible act to follow. By continually extending his profile and courting publicity, Paul seemed to have the cheek to try, which some find unforgivable.

I like this.
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: glass onion on January 10, 2011, 09:12:17 AM
well said mr mustard.where have you been hiding?
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: Mr Mustard on January 10, 2011, 10:01:17 AM
well said mr mustard.where have you been hiding?

...Asleep in a hole in the road ;)

Thanks all for the positive feedback :)
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: maccafan on January 11, 2011, 04:05:04 PM
Let's not forget, those very same pop charts that some just love to bash McCartney for topping, are the exact same pop charts that the likes of Led Zeppelin, the Who, The Stones, Genesis, Pink Floyd, Dylan, and everyone else for that matter were trying just as hard to top!

It's funny how it's such a bad thing because McCartney was so successful at doing it!  Didn't the Beatles do the exact same thing?

Mr. Mustard, you're so right, Wings sold by the shedloads, but it seems no one wants to give them credit for that?  All you hear is how bad Wings music is, well for this music to be so bad, there sure are a lot of people all over the world who love it, and there sure are a lot of people asking McCartney to perform more of it?

I didn't fall for the Wings isn't good insanity then, and I don't fall for it now!
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: glass onion on January 11, 2011, 05:23:45 PM
the problem is really that paul isn't seen as being 'cool'.one of my close friends says it gets on his nerves so much whenever 'he sees my mate on the telly giving a peace sign'.while it is true that some music that was big in the 70s' has not dated too well,i'm thinking e.l.o,maybe wings,bee gees etc..........-stuff like abba is still seen as being quality,and is still very popular as a result.why?i do not understand this at all.ok,wings were twee.abba weren't then?wings was for teenagers,and little girls.95% of pop music is aimed at that market,is it not?the other thing is,paul was not a passing fad,either.i can get my head around the bay city rollers or david cassidy not standing the test of time,but paul was always going to be here to stay.why do wings get a slating i just cannot stomach it.
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: nimrod on February 15, 2011, 02:09:16 AM
Of course I'm not going to change Nimrods mind, he doesn't want his mind changed, it's made up and that's it period. 


I think music is subjective, like art, you either like it or you dont, it either speaks to you and gives you pleasure or it doesnt, I dont like Wings music, never have, so Im not going to like WOA am I ?
I think Paul did blow his talent with Wings, but thats just my view and my opinion, I cant speak for others, in the 70's I was listening to more 'serious' rock like King Crimson and Pink Floyd and Yes. Paul couldve eqaulled anyone in serious rock music if he'd wanted to, he had the talent, but he chose to produce commercial pop music , entirely his choice of course.

Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: 7 of 13 on February 15, 2011, 07:19:46 PM
the problem is really that paul isn't seen as being 'cool'.one of my close friends says it gets on his nerves so much whenever 'he sees my mate on the telly giving a peace sign'.while it is true that some music that was big in the 70s' has not dated too well,i'm thinking e.l.o,maybe wings,bee gees etc..........-stuff like abba is still seen as being quality,and is still very popular as a result.why?i do not understand this at all.ok,wings were twee.abba weren't then?wings was for teenagers,and little girls.95% of pop music is aimed at that market,is it not?the other thing is,paul was not a passing fad,either.i can get my head around the bay city rollers or david cassidy not standing the test of time,but paul was always going to be here to stay.why do wings get a slating i just cannot stomach it.
i agree totally. there is no way you can waste talent by performing, i think this is an issue of sour grapes more than anything else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKPzwKUJ278
Title: Re: McCartney Blew His Talent
Post by: nimrod on February 24, 2011, 11:33:06 PM
I guess he has some points. But how does he differentiate between good and exceptional. Like always it's a matter of taste. He doesn't really say why.
I think McCartney peaked as a songwriter between 65 and 67. As the 70's progressed almost all of the sixties greats found their music declining in popularity (and I guess relevance) as they grew older.
But yes - Macca is almost universally criticised for the supposed lack of substance in hios work. But really, find me any great sixties act turning out exceptional music in 1976. Weren't Paperback Writer, Eleanor Rigby, Sgt Pepper, Penny Lane and Hey Jude exceptional enough>
IMO McCartney, Harrison and Lennon were all off the boil by the mid 70's. The difference with McCartney, despite him being one the uncoolest, ridiculed acts of the decade, was that he still sold records.

I can only think of Pink Floyd and maybe Jethro Tull


BTW Im not saying Wings music is bad, just that I dont like it..