I think "Tug Of War" is generally regarded as one of his best albums, and "Ebony And Ivory" is one of his most successful chart toppers. "Pipes of Peace" was a British #1... so your assertion that he "never hit those heights again" isn't quite true...
Agree jjs "Tug Of War " and " Ebony and Ivory "were very successful for Paul , your right to point that out , that album was indeed his last Billboard # 1 album and Ebony and Ivory was the 6th best selling single of the 80's on the Billboard singles chart . So i stand corrected . But the momentum of sustained hit making albums and singles peterd out as he moved into his solo career excluding "Tug of War" all his albums up to "Flaming Pie" failed to crack the Billboard top 10 album chart . And after "Spies Like Us " hit the Billboard top 10 singles chart in 1985, his top 10 singles run also peterd out . He slipped from # 2 most successful act on Billboard in the 1970's to # 21 in the 1980's . Too his credit on the albums front he as reversed this decline with recent albums .
Agree jjs "Tug Of War " and " Ebony and Ivory "were very successful for Paul , your right to point that out , that album was indeed his last Billboard # 1 album and Ebony and Ivory was the 6th best selling single of the 80's on the Billboard singles chart . So i stand corrected.
But the momentum of sustained hit making albums and singles peteerd out as he moved into his solo career excluding "Tug of War" all his albums up to "Flaming Pie" failed to crack the Billboard top 10 album chart . And after "Spies Like Us " hit the Billboard top 10 singles chart in 1985, his top 10 singles run also petered out . He slipped from # 2 most successful act on Billboard in the 1970's to # 21 in the 1980's . To his credit on the albums front he as reversed this decline with recent albums .
The fact is music had changed way too much by the mid 80's, and Paul's songs just weren't going to get played on Top 40 radio anymore. Personally, I think the world was a little Beatled-out and Pauled-out by the mid 80's. John was dead, and with that, the hopes of a reunion were gone. After a pretty quiet decade, the Beatles Anthology changed everything. The Beatles were rediscovered and back in style, and so was Paul. And He's been going pretty strong since... 'Flaming Pie', 'Wingspan', 'Back in the US', 'Chaos', 'Memory Almost Full'... for a guy his age to have a run like this with new material is pretty amazing. Add to that the success of his TV special, two successful world tours, the success of '1' (which is now one of the 5 best selling albums of all time), and the three 'Anthology' albums... Paul's had a pretty good last 15 years. Imagine if he had the top 40 radio exposure that he had in the 70's these last 15 years....
Paul`s solo career is greater, but i am sure John`s comes second. The whole world remembers what John did in terms of peace, and it was new and unprecedented. (i mean his way of protesting) certainly he didn`t establish peace but who else followed suit?
We're talking about best solo careers not what the individual beatles did in the news.
The fact is music had changed way too much by the mid 80's, and Paul's songs just weren't going to get played on Top 40 radio anymore. Personally, I think the world was a little Beatled-out and Pauled-out by the mid 80's. John was dead, and with that, the hopes of a reunion were gone. After a pretty quiet decade, the Beatles Anthology changed everything. The Beatles were rediscovered and back in style, and so was Paul. And He's been going pretty strong since... 'Flaming Pie', 'Wingspan', 'Back in the US', 'Chaos', 'Memory Almost Full'... for a guy his age to have a run like this with new material is pretty amazing. Add to that the success of his TV special, two successful world tours, the success of '1' (which is now one of the 5 best selling albums of all time), and the three 'Anthology' albums... Paul's had a pretty good last 15 years. Imagine if he had the top 40 radio exposure that he had in the 70's these last 15 years....
Agree jjs Paul's career as enjoyed a real boost since the Anthology albums , i also think the other three Beatles have also benefited from that project , George inparticular gained a great deal of respect i feel . Your right about things changing in the mid 80's , MTV i always think marginalized many of the 60's and 70's artists who were by then 40 + and did'nt fit it's youthful appeal . Madonna and the emergence of other female performers also shifted the charts worldwide to being more female centric . I think considering the changes that have happend in music , Paul as done remarkably well too sustain his 40+ year career .
Absolutely agree with you! It was not I who started the peace movement discussion. This was an answer to jjs post. Please, read the previous posts.
Ah you're right. I apologize about that. I do agree with JJS post though. Somehow people think that John's political activism made his medicore career better then it was. Jjs pretty much stated every point as to why John's career hardly compares to Paul's career. Its sad that he is getting a lot of heat for stating in a blunt manner as to why John's career isn't as good as people say it is. I don't think he meant to be a jerk about it. It's just frustrating when you see people bash Paul and say that his career is full of the false sterotypes and pointless while Johns music is gold because he tried to make statements.
well, most of the people i know personally loath him for writing stuff like Kintyre, Silly Love Loves & the Frog Chorus. i don't, i love them all
Now you're spouting BS.
Most of the people you know have never heard that song, so how could they know who wrote it or have an opinion about it?
"Stuff" like "Kintyre" and "Silly Love Songs"? As opposed to what? "Rocky Racoon", "Hello, Goodbye" and "Maxwell's Silver Hammer".
The songs you mention are no different than anything he's ever done. Lots of them aren't everyone's cup of tea, because not everyone cares for every style of music. If your tastes are narrow, of course you're going to dislike it when he writes a country, oldies, 30's, disco, reggae, hard rock, pop, or folk song... or a Scottish waltz with bagpipes.
You're just trying to justify your own opinion with BS.
Ah you're right. I apologize about that. I do agree with JJS post though. Somehow people think that John's political activism made his medicore career better then it was. Jjs pretty much stated every point as to why John's career hardly compares to Paul's career. Its sad that he is getting a lot of heat for stating in a blunt manner as to why John's career isn't as good as people say it is. I don't think he meant to be a jerk about it. It's just frustrating when you see people bash Paul and say that his career is full of the false sterotypes and pointless while Johns music is gold because he tried to make statements.
mmm.... yeah I'm blunt. Sorry.
I'd like once to have an honest chat about the solo albums, whats wrong with them and what's right with them, without some freak putting John on a pedestal because of all that bed-in peace BS. And it is BS. And I'd like to be able to say so without being accused of "hating" John.
Does dropping acid 1000 times and writing "I Am The Walrus" endow someone with some special gift that makes their political opinions more valid than mine? Where I'm from, it negates any credibility they might have ever had. Rock stars are comic book characters, and I don't need Daffy Duck preaching political practices.
He's not full of hatred. He makes a very valid point. You can't have a discussion nowadays without some Lennon fantic bashing Paul and saying John is god and his music is gold. He just said that he wants to have a truthful conversation(And the truth hurts) without someone accussing him of hating John. Unfortunately he did not get what he wanted because he is being accused of being a hater and is getting so much heat for stating truth.
Maybe such things happen in the USA... They had problems with John. But I have never heard of such a biased to extremes position. In fact there are kind of two camps each (not only one) criticising the other`s "god". jjs provokes people instead of having a balanced discussion. To tell you the truth, I think he does it deliberately to strike oil...
JJS dislikes the notion that his solo career was somehow rendered "more important" than it actually was, solely because of his political views. As I said, no one can compare John's solo career to Paul's in any way where John comes out on top. So this ridiculous notion was invented.
I prefer to judge his (and the rest of the Beatles) solo careers without all that silliness.
"John couldn't do it by himself? What's that supposed to mean?" It means that John couldn't crank out #1's singles like Paul could. His only #1 single was "Whatever Gets you Through the Night"... with help from Elton John. Part of the reason the Beatles broke up was because John was sick of "being a sideman for Paul." He was upset because Paul got the "A" side while his songs got the "B" side, although personally I don't see this. After the Beatles, John's singles didn't hit the top of the charts... and then of course when the #1 hits weren't coming so easily, such "commercial" success suddenly became unimportant.
"John couldn't fill up a stadium? When did John decide to do a solo world tour? " John toured early on... and his management company quietly bought up empty seats. No one could trust they weren't going to get 45 minutes of Yoko shrieking.... so his attempt to play concert dates flopped. George also had a failed tour in the mid 70's.
I don't completely disagree with your points, but I'm not in total agreement either. You do appear to have a real personal distaste for John Lennon, based on your posts. You'll say you don't, and that's fine; that's my opinion based on what I've read.
"Just Like Starting Over" was also a #1 single posthumously. "Imagine" hit #2.
"No one can compare John's solo career to Paul's in any way where John comes out on top." Nonsense. I'm doing just that, and I'm not going by chart positions or how many top 10s each Beatle had. I'm going by the quality of the musical catalogue. Here, John beats Paul by my scorecard. Let's face it, Paul's had some great songs but has also written a ton of shmaltzy crap that tends to get his reputation hammered by critics.
And folks, the #1 act of the '70s was Led Zeppelin, hands down. If you're keeping score by hit singles, then yeah, maybe Elton wins that crown. Or maybe the Bee Gees, or Stevie Wonder. But Zeppelin was the biggest band, with the most record sales, the most fans, the biggest tours. They were the Godzillas of 1970s rock.
Home
Calendar
Search
Register
Login
Jane
Male
Female
Logged
