I don't think Paul has earned the praises as a solo artist & with his band Wings for over 30 years now since the breakup of the Beatles because he has recorded some of the best mainstream pop, rock & pap around with only a few sparks of greatness.   McCartney is one of the greatest singers, songwriters, musicians & performers of all time with few equals while he has released more mediocre music than great music as a solo artist & with Wings but he knows how to keep his name in the spotlight for over 40 years.  Paul hasn't lived up to his legendary status as a former Beatle as an artist which isn't being negative just stating the facts but there's no denying he is one of a kind in rock history who will never be forgotten.

Yeah... I agree wholeheartedly with you... I've discussed on several occassions his brilliant musical abilities... It seems that only his mind could've come up with all of those masterful hits he created throughout the 70's... Band on the Run (the song, not the album) is great example of this... It's like three songs in one... Very brilliantly put together...

I can't wait to see him in concert, if the tour is really going to happen.

i think paul himself admits that his best work was with the beatles. like u said, he sporadically has great songs a la band on the run.

That may be somewhat true, but it's hard to follow up with all the amazing stuff he wrote in The Beatles, don't you think?

How can he possibly compete with his past? He has earned every single praise he has garnered.  You're  going to look down your nose at Paul McCartney because every time at bat isn't a homerun? What a pretentious presumptuous lot.

Quoted from juniorsfarm

How can he possibly compete with his past? He has earned every single praise he has garnered.  You're  going to look down your nose at Paul McCartney because every time at bat isn't a homerun? What a pretentious presumptuous lot.

Finally a voice of reason!!!! Thank you Junior. It really is that simple. Why bring this up anymore?

Yeah. Let this thread die.

Quoted from Wayne_L.

I don't think Paul has earned the praises as a solo artist & with his band Wings for over 30 years now since the breakup of the Beatles because he has recorded some of the best mainstream pop, rock & pap around with only a few sparks of greatness.

This doesnt even make sense!! How can he only have a few sparks of greatness if you said he recorded some of the best mainstream pop, rock & pap (whatever that is) around? Maybe the best mainstream pop, rock & pap (whatever that is) isnt great? Whatever.

Quoted Text

  McCartney is one of the greatest singers, songwriters, musicians & performers of all time with few equals while he has released more mediocre music than great music as a solo artist & with Wings

This comes with 'quantity' Wayne. If we pulled all the solo efforts together and played percentages,,,,Paul would be right there at the top.

Quoted Text

 Paul hasn't lived up to his legendary status as a former Beatle as an artist which isn't being negative just stating the facts

Which one has?

Quoted Text

but there's no denying he is one of a kind in rock history who will never be forgotten.

Are you sure you can admit this?  

Quoted from tkitna

Finally a voice of reason!!!! Thank you Junior. It really is that simple. Why bring this up anymore?

Hasn't this been beaten to death on this forum?  People like to criticize all things great because somehow it makes them feel important. Look at all this man has accomplished and continues to accomplish, and feel fortunate that you are alive to experience it. So what if everything isn't a masterpiece? There is still a ton of excellent post-Beatle music he has created and continues to create. When any of you naysayers can come up with anything that has one scintilla the brilliance this man has created, then maybe post this stupid topic again. And, no, I'm not one of these 'Paul Can Do No Wrong' fans, he has released some subpar stuff but so has everyone else that has ever released an album.

Quoted from Mairi

Yeah. Let this thread die.

Your right Mairi. I dont even know why I responded.

(I have to quit logging on while drinking)

It's tacit acknowledgment by Paul that his music has been pushed to the sidelines. Maybe that's the reason why recently he offered a slew of his solo songs to be used in adverts..and maybe the reason he's doing it is for the exposure. If it's going to live on in the next generation, he's got to get it to that generation somehow...

More power to him.

Good thread. Very..timely.

^Moreover I think Paul seems to think his solo music is somewhat disposable. I'm sure it may be the bashing he has taken over the years about it from some fans and critics. If you look at his tours since 1989, he only really plays a handful of solo hits & whatever new album he is plugging. The rest is all Beatles. I think you could count all the post 1976 he plays tunes on 1 hand (minus the new album). Maybe this is his way of trying to get some of his solo music out there to a new audience.

He earned it all in spades...no Beatle was releasing many masterpieces after 1976 or so.

We have no idea how much better or worse John would have become musically so its kind of pointless to debate that one.

He gets praises from people who want to praise him, he has plenty of detractors too...so what's the point of all this?

Quoted from TheDude

i think paul himself admits that his best work was with the beatles. like u said, he sporadically has great songs a la band on the run.

I agree with you 100% about Paul as a solo artist which is the way most Beatles fan should look at it instead of kissing his a** which is why what I'm saying isn't negative just factual.

Paul's solo stuff gets bashed all the time. Only rarely does it get praised. Usually,the praise comes when he releases a new album. Every time,some of the critics will give backhanded compliments by saying it's his best album since...
They were wrong when they said it about Driving Rain,Off the Ground,Flowers in the Dirt,Press to Play,and Pipes for Peace,but they were right when they said it about Flaming Pie and Tug of War. Hopefully,they'll be right when they say it,which they undoubtedly will,about this new one.

500 Years from now, Paul McCartney will be just as much of a legend as Mozart, Bach and Beethoven. Seriously.

Quoted from Biscuit_Power

500 Years from now, Paul McCartney will be just as much of a legend as Mozart, Bach and Beethoven. Seriously.

Truer words have never been spoken!

Nothing more needs to be said. Biscuit Power has summed it up for all of us.

Quoted from Biscuit_Power

500 Years from now, Paul McCartney will be just as much of a legend as Mozart, Bach and Beethoven. Seriously.

Amen.

Quoted from Biscuit_Power

500 Years from now, Paul McCartney will be just as much of a legend as Mozart, Bach and Beethoven. Seriously.

Well that is just simply nonsense. Anyone who agrees with that simply has no clue about the complexity and depth of the music written by those three, especially Bach (meaning Johann Sebastian Bach, I presume).

Paul will be known as one of the Beatles, the greatest pop and rock group of their age. The Beatles will be remembered as a cultural icon, and the creators of some clever and very original pieces, recorded in ground-breaking ways. The only pieces that have any, any chance of still being played or listened to in any way are tracks like Rain, Tomorrow Never Knows, Strawberry Fields, Walrus, Revolution 9. Yeah, yeah, I know what some of you will think and say! But honestly, they are works of genius, in a way that none of Paul's or George's (or Ringo's) songs are.

But Paul as a separate entity? Mentioned in the same breath as Bach, Mozart, Beethoven? Come on, get a hold on reality. Paul McCartney may be the author of what you think are very pleasant, hummable songs. But FIVE centuries of longevity are not built on silly love songs!  

I agree, that  Mozart, Bach and Beethoven all show extraordinary intellect and talent, which still challenges that of modern composers. But, it has to be remembered that at the time (without hindsight) the music these composers wrote was aimed at a specific audience, much like that of pop*. The audience was very much different, but it is this consistent ideology of audience engagement, which can be seen in any performer, and in any field of music.
The Beatles music or sound may not be classed as complex but it certainly contains depth and meaning. This is obvious and, naturally celebrated. Mccartney being a critical figure in the 'four-headed monster'  can therefore be honored with such a comment.
Songs such as Yesterday, Penny Lane, Eleanor Rigby, Let it be .. etc
The above songs all show what you term genius
Oh, and the songs you have mentioned, its not like Lennon sat in a white room, cut off from all life, and wrote, played and recorded all by himself...howway, ever recorded yourself? It doesn't work like that. Mccartney input was critical to Lennon (and obviously vica-versa) so Mccartney can, like Lennon, be celebrated.

Mccartney as a seperate entity? Yes, of course!
The Beatles are the best at what they do, much like the classical comparison of Mozart, Bach and Beethoven.

* The term pop often troubles me. We all know the interpretation has changed over the decades, but using pop to front a negative view on the actual music is a modern misconception of meaning.

Quotes from Indica

Quoted Text

Oh, and the songs you have mentioned, its not like Lennon sat in a white room, cut off from all life, and wrote, played and recorded all by himself...howway, ever recorded yourself? It doesn't work like that. Mccartney input was critical to Lennon (and obviously vica-versa) so Mccartney can, like Lennon, be celebrated.

True, so true. I didn't mean to imply no-one else had any input. But the idea of the songs I quoted was John Lennon's. But without the others and George Martin, and engineers, they would not have been the works they are.

Quoted Text

The Beatles music or sound may not be classed as complex but it certainly contains depth and meaning. This is obvious and, naturally celebrated. Mccartney being a critical figure in the 'four-headed monster'  can therefore be honored with such a comment.

But only as a member of the Beatles. That's my point.

Quoted Text

Songs such as Yesterday, Penny Lane, Eleanor Rigby, Let it be .. etc
The above songs all show what you term genius

No, not genius. Just good songs. I know it's opinion, but I can't see Penny Lane, Let It Be etc surviving five hundred years. I can barely see it for the Lennon songs I mentioned.

500 years is along time, I must admit after frantically typing, I sat back, and then thought about 500 actual years...slightly hypercritical on my behalf.

But Hey Jude, that has to survive..its an anthem for millions of people.

Interesting. I think THE song of Macca's that might (just might) be remembered is For No One. The perspective from which the singer sings is very interesting. The singer is neither the man nor the woman, but is inside each of their heads.

Some of the twists in the song are unique to a love song. For example, "... all her words of kindness linger on when she no longer needs you". Kindness? What a thing for a pining lover to remember! Her words of kindness! What sort of love and relationship did this couple have?

Virtually no-one knows (outside rabid fans) about For No One. Long may it remain that way, so it remains a superb song (OK work of genius) to be discovered and re-discovered.

I love for no one, one of my personal favourites.
I always thought the lines:


She says that long ago she knew someone but now he’s gone
She doesn’t need him

was infact:

She says that long ago she knew someone but now he’s gone
She doesn’t mean* him

Suggesting an old affair that may be still happening (the line - You stay home, she goes out* - me thinking goes out to another)

and yet she doesn't mean the man from the affair (who the partner craves for her to say..knowing there must be another)..but infact him..as the love and meaning is truly lost.

Then I found out I was completely wrong, when i checked the lyrics

I never hear those guys on the radio. But,The Beatles,I hear all the time. Of course,I fall asleep when I try to listen to classical music-just not sophisticated enough,I guess. They need better lyrics.

RIGHT ON!!!!!!!!!!

Quoted from Ydoll_Gwyn

Well that is just simply nonsense. Anyone who agrees with that simply has no clue about the complexity and depth of the music written by those three, especially Bach (meaning Johann Sebastian Bach, I presume).

The complexity and depth of the music are totally irrelevant! It's the impact that it had that matters. The music of The Beatles had a much bigger impact on humanity (partially because of radio and TV of course) than Bach's music ever had.

Hundreds of years from now, the Beatles will be remembered as almost mythical figures, like we remember Shakespear, Da Vinci, Bach or Rembrandt now.

And most classical might be much more complex and deeper than any piece of pop music ever made, but I think it's arrogant to think that (good) pop music is a lower art form than classical music, painting, sculpturing or poetry. Cause it simply isn't. I studied art history for several years, but no art form has ever touched me the way pop music does. To not recognize pop music as a true form of art is to me arrogant and overtly conservative.

Quoted from Ydoll_Gwyn

No, not genius. Just good songs.

You've gotta be kidding... If writing the best selling music ever isn't good enough to be labeled a genius, then I seriously don't know what is... You're just not making any sense here.

Of course The Beatles will be remembered 500 years from now. They even have Beatles History classes at the universities now

Quoted from Biscuit_Power

You've gotta be kidding... If writing the best selling music ever isn't good enough to be labeled a genius, then I seriously don't know what is... You're just not making any sense here.

I couldnt have said it any better.

This whole thread reminds me of something Maria said many moons ago, that after George died, his music would be more highly praised than Pauls. That may have been the stupidest thing i've ever read. I love George and his solo stuff, but outside of the more intense Beatle fans, his music is almost forgotten NOW. Sad but true.

I think most of you folk posting in this thread don't quite realize how long 500 years is. In 1505 (500 years ago), there was a wealth of popular songs - as in all times. Virtually all of them are now long forgotten. Same applies to literature, all sorts of music, art. Only the very best survive. My point is that only a few Beatles works will survive if any: and they will be Lennon's, as the songs of his I gave earlier are more than "pop hits" of their day. They feel to me to have a timeless quality, which is part of their attraction.

But Paul McCartney remembered for his work OTHER THAN AS A BEATLE? Oh no. I think that's as certain as anything can be. You think people will be talking about Band On the Run in 500 years? Come on, that's silly.

Some of you need to be educated in some other forms of music too. The person who said he never hears Beethoven etc on the radio ain't listening to suitable stations!

Quoted from tkitna

I couldnt have said it any better.

This whole thread reminds me of something Maria said many moons ago, that after George died, his music would be more highly praised than Pauls. That may have been the stupidest thing i've ever read. I love George and his solo stuff, but outside of the more intense Beatle fans, his music is almost forgotten NOW. Sad but true.

In some circles, George's work is much more praised than McCartney's. I think a lot of Paul's revisionism stems from the realization that only his Beatle work is respected and of lasting value. His whole solo career is pretty empty - there were good times, and lots of people come to his concerts still. But only coz he was a Beatle. Do you think Flaming Pie or McCartney (1) or Red Rose Speedway or Flowers In The Dirt would have gone anywhere if Paul had NOT been a Beatle?

George's Beatle work (playing and some of his songs) are respected, AND some of his solo work is wonderful, and is so valued. Paul's silly love songs haunt him, that's for sure.

Could someone please list a bunch of solo songs from each so we can sort of see and compare. I'm not that into their solo stuff, so I'm only familiar with the popular stuff. But I'd like to know which songs you all would say are thier best. Like if you list 10 or more songs from each maybe it will paint a better picture.

But I don't even know if that would be fair, since Paul has made an enormous amount more than John. So Paul would have more "best" songs to choose from.

But maybe that kind of settles it, eh?

Yeah, but lots of people think after the 70's he sort of lost it. So maybe just stuff from that era. Did George do much after the 70's? I mean besides the Traveling Wilburys?

Actually he went on a solo tour in '74, but it was panned.

(The Traveling Wilburys were in the 80s, I think)

Yes, definitely the 80's. I remember it! I mean did he do anything SOLO after the 70's. I have no idea.

Oh. Um.. Got My Mind Set on You in '87. :p

George released his worst album during the 80s (Gone Troppo) and one of his best (Cloud Nine)

Thanks for the info Bruno.