[quote by=Maria link=Blah.pl?b=mccartney,m=1082387341,s=12 date=1082541327]
First: he's not a "rock" icon. If anything he's a "pop" icon. But he's not even that, for me. I think Paul has been in the business (and I mean bu$ine$$) of being "Beatle Paul" for around 20 years. He didn't start like that: with Wings, he said that was a new band, and there'd be no looking back to Beatle days. That proved unrealistic, and he succumbed to being Beatle Paul. People go to his concerts to hear old Beatle songs, sung by Fab Paul. He cashes in.
First, he is a 'Rock' icon. Michael Jackson and Brittany are 'pop' icons. Big difference. Paul dabbled in the 'pop' genre, but thats not whats hes known or remembered for.
When Paul started Wings, and continued with them through out all of the member changes, he didnt succumb to being Beatle Paul. Are you trying to say that Paul cashed in because he was an ex-beatle, or are you saying that he started to write songs that were beatlesque? If its the song writing aspect,,,,um, he was a Beatle after all. Paul has his style of writing songs and just because the beatles broke up, that doesnt mean he's going to change his style. Regardless, if we're talking about cashing in beacuse he was an ex-beatle, well, they all did. If the beatles never existed, John would have been mentioned in the same breath as Zappa. Say what you want, but the first scent of Yokos bullsh*t with the public = stigma. George was a social recluse anyways, so I can see him being mentioned in the same light as say, Joni Mitchell or Arlo Guthrie. If he wasnt a Beatle, his solo stuff wouldnt be recived very well. Who on the street can name more than 5 George songs as it is now? Besides 'All Things Must Pass' (which Band on the Run could stand up to), what does George bring to the table that Paul couldnt match? Nothing! Ringo's been making a living on playing beatle tunes for 30 years. The bottom line,,,,you dont go to a Jimmy Page concert and not expect to hear a few Zeppelin tunes. Same applies to Paul.
Second: how could he have used his gifts? Look at his solo songs, tkitna. Most are fairly superficial aren't they? Maybe a catchy tune, almost always forgettable words. Listen to the often corny arrangements. And his genius as a tunesmith is often vastly over stated: to hear some people talk, his tunes are instantly catchy. Most are not, in fact. So I think he should have waited till he had something he really wanted to sing about. Work at the words and arrangements. Nuture his muse, respect it! Fewer albums, but good ones. Like I said in another context here, it's quality, not quantity, that counts.
So what we're saying is that Paul writes fodder songs on purpose just to appeal to the public? Come on! Your whole statement is based on the fact that Paul has shown such moments of brillance that you expect a masterpiece everytime out! That would be a nice fantasy world. I'm sure he throws a crapper together every now and then to get the record out. Everyone does. If you cant see through that, your kidding yourself. When Paul puts a new record out, the first listen (probably many more to come) throws up the red flag of,,,,man, he sure has done better in the past! Heres something to ponder, what has George ever done that comes even remotely close to ATMP? Exactley!
To answer your last question: I'll give you a Beatle that used his gifts in a positive way: George Harrison. He matured and improved. And a non-Beatle: Bob Dylan. They are both serious artists, with concern for their music; they take pains.
George did not improve. ATMP was his measuring stick and never even caught a glimpse of it. Dylan took pains? Yeah, everytime I listen to a latter album, it sends a pain right through me. Changing with the times? Paul did this, but the only difference is,,,,people remember it!
And: I like this sort of discussion. It's what a Beatles board should be about ... Beatles. I look forward to your reply, tkitna.
I agree and i'm also looking forward to your next response.