Print

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

[nimrod]

Quote from Kevin;

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.

[Kevin]

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.

[Bobber]

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).

[tkitna]

I like 'Say Say Say'.

[Bobber]

I like 'Say Say Say'.

Well, some people bought the record I presume. But it is not regarded as THE showcase for Paul's talent I suppose.

[glass onion]

i quite like the whole of the 'pipes of peace' album.then again i also quite like 'press to play'.

[nimrod]

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

[Ahme]

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

[Kevin]

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.

[glass onion]

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.

[Kevin]

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.

[tkitna]

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.

[Bobber]

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.

[tkitna]

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.

[carlacundari]

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-

[glass onion]

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'.

[nyfan(41)]

Linda maybe   destroyed Paul's genius-

-
  ^ this i kind of agree with. watered it down for sure, lol 

[Ovi]

Linda maybe   destroyed Paul's genius-

Nonsense.

[fanofthefab4]

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.

[nimrod]

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.