I heard this at the beginning of a local talk radio show a few months back I was listening to where the guy said " Paul McCartney sucks.....now. " cynically speaking meaning he's not as cool as he used to be or as influential as an artist as he was back in the 60's & even in the 70's which I agree with wholeheartedly as a fan.  Paul is one of the greatest singers, songwriters, musicians & performers of all time with few equals during his Beatles days & as a solo artist but for over 20 years now especially he has had more ups & downs with more mediocre albums going through the motions as a former Beatle & music legend which is what this local radio talk host was getting at.

Would be hard not to agree really.  It's strange. I mean there is nothing for him to prove but it is what he loves.
He is a performer and therefore must feel the need to perform. I personally have struggled to get into much of his solo stuff even though he is probably my most influential role model in music.

Just so much to shake off after being a Beatle. Although it was well documented that 'Your Gonna Carry That Weight' on Abbey Rd. is a prophecy of that. Maybe he thought he could have shaken it off by now, back then though. lol

I think his further experiments with The Frog chorus theme is a great idea for him at his time of life. I never really heard his Orchestral album yet. I intend too although it had a bit of a subdued reception here in England.

Saying that, seeing him last year In London at Earls Court was amazing. Fair play to him for not giving into playing all those Beatles songs a lot sooner! At least in doing his own music post-Beatle he helped keep them sacred. Many tough choices for a man in his position.

He is the man but will have to agree. Apologies to all devout solo Macca fans but the last 20 yrs do seem lamer in comparison.

I don't think anyone could ever say Paul sucks now - he is still producing music which although doesn't always hit the mark, is still always listenable.

I agree, would never, ever say he sucks now. Plus this is my 200th post and needed to get it out. lol

No, Paul rarely 'sucked'.  He may not have been working to his former potential but the man is a consummate pro musician.

Firstly, I cant see past the slightly foolish word 'suck' which irratates me more than it should.
It would be insanse to think Mccartney could ever rise above the 'revolution' that he and fellow colleagues set all those years ago.
Saying Mccartney isnt as cool, really does show the lack of understanding. How can the man not be as cool? it is the same man as the Beatles etc... maybe becasue he has a few more wrinkles..and dresses in more 'average' attire...but this does not transform mind-sets..skill...creativity..etc
I agree, his music is no where near as good, but to expect it would be, is plain silly.
His voice isnt as good..but thats natural...he is getting on you know

For me, Paul Mccartney got me into music, made me pick an instrument up, moulded my fashion in a way etc etc. I dont like using Idol*..but Mccartney is my main inspiration for getting me into Music.
I will always respect him as the Greatest Musician* a tag which could be easily backed up

I think "suck" is sort of a harsh word to use. No offense to you Wayne.

Personally, I don't think it matters. Paul has created some beautiful, timeless classics. He plays the bass like a mother, puts on great concerts, and still enjoys what he does- if some radio DJ thinks he sucks so be it. With the acclaim comes the pitfalls, and that happens to everyone eventually I believe.

I think "suck" is a harsh word, as I said. I don't care for a lot of his solo work. I bought his last album devotedly, because I always get his new stuff. I dislike it immensely. At first I was like, "Oh its just a slow album...takes time to grow into..." Now I think everything just plods along on it, but still...that's me. I like a bunch of his solo songs, but none of his albums all the way through.  But I think he is one of the greats and find inspiration where others may not, so I could NEVER say "sucks" to describe him in general, though the "Frog Chorus" or "Bip Bop" or "C-Moon" definitely do suck to these ears.

Raise your hand if you think this question sucks!

Only Paul would get this kind of criticism. The dudes in his 60's for god's sake. He's still performing like he's twenty and touching people with his music. So he's not writing #1 songs anymore. So what. He had a pretty good run for 20 years. I like some of his new stuff. It's still very Paul.

Quoted from tkitna, posted November 3, 2004, 12:19am at here

Raise your hand if you think this question sucks!

lmao, good one tk

I haven't read everything up there, because i want to say this before i forget it

I just bought Paul's Back In The US cd that came out in 2002... it was amazing... his vocals are still extremely outstanding, especially compared to today's standard of screaming... Anyway, due to my satisfaction with the cd, I bought the DVD counterpart... It was amazing, as well... he still has all the charisma from the Beatles years, and even though he's as rich as he ever needs to be, he was still as compassionate about his business and his music onstage...

I think Paul McCartney is really the best rock musician still alive right now. He most definately does not suck.

No of course not
paul will probably never suck
and he never has

Quoted from tkitna, posted November 3, 2004, 12:19am at here

Raise your hand if you think this question sucks!

<waves>

I don't think he is worse or better.

The beatles are the beatles because their was ALL of them where as now he is a solo artist, their is a big difference between being in a band being a solo artist.

Paul will never suck..why would he? He's one of the Beatles and the Beatles don't suck..it's ridiculous for someone to say that he sucks..that DJ was probably high..I'd like to see some stupid radio host write so many albums and perform in front of sold out audiences in his 60's! And even if his music isn't as good as it used to be, gee, I still gotta buy all his solo albums enyways, and all the other Beatles too...I mean you gotta have it even if you don't like it cos it's just how true fans are!!!

Quoted from Wayne_L., posted November 2, 2004, 12:58pm at here

cynically speaking meaning he's not as cool as he used to be or as influential as an artist as he was back in the 60's & even in the 70's which I agree with wholeheartedly as a fan.

Name one musician that has made nothing but brilliant and inspiring work for 40 years in a row...

Welllll...Wayne is right about one thing: Paul isn't influencing any new musicians (that we know of), he is a legacy performer.  And what a legacy!

As to whether he's as cool...well, to me he still is but I think I know what Wayne means here as well...all being a part of the youth movement with the attendant drug sunculture we all felt ultra-cool.  Now everyone's married with kids, divorced, remarried, unemployed, yada yada.  NONE of us are very cool anymore, unfortunately.  Especialy to our kids!

I think the Beatles influence a lot of new musicians. Which of course includes Paul. I swear I hear little things here and there from these new bands that sound Beatleish. All the old 60's bands are influential to these new people. They all wanna be as big and important as their 'ancestors' were. But that ain't gonna happen.

The first two lines of the chorus to TLC's "Waterfall" sound awefully familiar to me... They almost completely copied Paul's "Waterfall"...

TLC: "Don't go chasing waterfalls / Please stick to the rivers and the lakes that you're used to"

Paul: "Don't go jumping waterfalls / Please keep to the lake"

They aren't exact matches, but I'd say that TLC got their inspiration from Paul's tune. And I'm sure there are millions of other ways that artists today show their inspiration from Paul and the Beatles...

I know Paul has made some great music for over 20 years now but it's not exactly similiar to his influential days in the Beatles like Abbey Road or his popular mainstream days with Wings as in Band On The Run Biscuit Power.