Rolling Stone Top-100... Why No Paul?
-
This sums up what RollingStone.com thinks of Paul sadly... http://www.rollingstone.com/music/artists/paul-mccartney Paul McCartney's gift for light-pop songwriting has made him the most commercially successful ex-Beatle and one of the most successful songwriters of the century. He answered his critics in 1976 with the single "Silly Love Songs," one of many post-Beatles hits. If, as some critics maintain, his solo work hasn't measured up to the standards of his collaborations with John Lennon, McCartney has still shown a consistent talent for writing songs that are tuneful and popular.
-
Rolling Stone did give Paul 4 Stars for Electric Arguments http://archive.rollingstone.com/20081127/#!/121 Note: add 121 to the link as it's not complete, it will take you to the page of the review.
-
As I posted earlier, Rollingstone doesn't have a clue! How can you even begin to try and justify not having the acknowledged greatest singer songwriter in the ENTIRE HISTORY OF POPULAR MUSIC on a greatest artist list, how can you? It's a sin and a shame, and downright insane how Paul McCartney just doesn't get the real true credit he deserves! I'd stack Wings Over America one of the absolute greatest live rock albums ever, and I do mean ever, against Lennon and the Plastic Ono band anyday! Compared to that blistering live rocking album I'd say all the other is the lightweight affair! Paul McCartney in actuality should be right after the Beatles on any greatest list! If you're acknowledged as the greatest songwriter IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF POPULAR MUSIC, if you've been nominated as the greatest singer songwriter OF THE MILLENIUM not once but twice, if you wrote THE BIGGEST HIT THE BEATLES EVER HAD, if you wrote THE MOST COVERED SONG IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF POPULAR MUSIC, who could possibly be higher than that? Right now today McCartney is acknowledged as the most famous most successful rock star on planet Earth! So once again, who can be higher than that? Only the Beatles, and that's because of their historical significance! So Paul McCartney not being on the list makes that list a total and complete joke!!
-
Michelley:
. Edited to add: Squid's point about John and Paul being used in the culture wars is spot on. This all really ticks me off. Obviously.
Yep, I agree with it too. This great Lennon Vs McCartney feud that Lennon fed with his interviews making slams at Paul. (I'm not blaming him totally. He always spouted his mind and that was part of Lennon's appeal). I'm just sick of the debates on Beatles groups and boards and even in real life. Many act like they feuded from day one. One thing I like about the J/P slash groups, whether they're you're cup of tea or not, those ladies at least appreciate both artists and acknowledge each's merits and flaws pretty accurately.
-
Michelley:
.It was Jann Wenner who said that McCartney's solo debut "is not just a nice little record, it's a statement and it's taking place in a context that we know: it's one person breaking up the band." So he had his magazine trash Paul's solo album -- not because of the music at all -- but because he blamed Paul for the Beatles' breakup..
Wenner isn't loved by some of the main writers in the J/P slashgroups for this statement either what bugs me is, Wasn't Yoko the one who people blamed for breaking up the band? When did that start in Beatles history? Yeah, I remember the breakup and the teen girls hating on Paul for it.
-
Very similar to the way the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame inducted John 5 years prior to inducting Paul...ridiculous!!!!!!
-
Hence, Stella's t-shirt.
-
audi:
Hence, Stella's t-shirt.
-
-
I had heard that also Paul and his family felt bad that it didn't happen while Linda was still alive. Paul took Stella as his date that night
-
Kathryn O:
Michelley:
.It was Jann Wenner who said that McCartney's solo debut "is not just a nice little record, it's a statement and it's taking place in a context that we know: it's one person breaking up the band." So he had his magazine trash Paul's solo album -- not because of the music at all -- but because he blamed Paul for the Beatles' breakup..
Wenner isn't loved by some of the main writers in the J/P slashgroups for this statement either what bugs me is, Wasn't Yoko the one who people blamed for breaking up the band? When did that start in Beatles history? Yeah, I remember the breakup and the teen girls hating on Paul for it.
I was 15 in 1970 when the Beatles broke up and we (me & my friends) never blamed Paul! It was always Yoko. This started almost immediately in 1970 after the official announcement.
-
Kathryn O:
I had heard that also Paul and his family felt bad that it didn't happen while Linda was still alive. Paul took Stella as his date that night
Yes. He actually made reference to this when he said that it was a happy and sad occasion, since Linda would have loved to have seen his induction into the HOF. As for the time it took, it would have been lovely to have John and Paul both get inducted simultaneously, but there is no way that was ever going to happen. And, everyone knew it was always a question of when not if it would happen. All things being equal, Paul's induction speech for John is one of the classiest moments in the history of rock n' roll, followed closely by Yoko's obituary for Linda, written in Rolling Stone in 1998.
-
bunwhisper:
seventieslord:
The Beatles are #1, I recall Lennon is about #31, but I couldn't believe there was no room for Macca on this thing. .
RS has *always* treated Paul like a red-headed step-child. They have never respected him. I am not surprised at all that they ignored him. Was George on the list?
Nope.
-
beatlesfanrandy:
Why should anyone be surprised by that. Stack up McCartney against John Lennon Plastic Ono Band and Abbey Road or Let It Be and you have a pretty lightweight affair.
Yes, that's definitely a fair thing to say.
-
MaccaBeatles:
Jerry Lee Lewis should be quite a bit higher up on that list I think, he was the only rocker in the 50's that had a chance to standing up against Elvis, and he had many classic singles in the 50's, late 60's and 70's. He is one of the most respected country singers as well as the last living major Sun Records artist and has possibly one of the most rock n roll careers of all time. He makes Keith Richards look like a pansy. Edit: Oh yeah and he's still rockin' today!
His country stuff seems rather pedestrian to me. I think his influence and legacy was/is as a rock and roller. So please direct me to some great rockers aside from the usual suspects. I'm finding his catalog rather thin at this point and can't understand how he's a spot ahead of Fats.
-
I love Fats Domino! That guy had a groove man, just badass music. Totally asinine that that Paul's not on that list, should be in the top 20 at least.
-
Seventieslord, so you think that's a fair thing to say? You think it's fair that not only does McCartney have to take on Lennon, but the Beatles as well, you honestly think that's fair? Stack Lennon up against McCartney alone and it's no contest! No one would stack up against the Beatles, and then you add John Lennon who is one of the best songwriters, how on Earth is that fair? Even with all that against him Paul McCartney is still acknowledged and it's documented that he is the GREATEST SONGWRITER IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF POPULAR MUSIC!! Now everything else, everything else, is the lightweight affair!! Paul McCartney should be #2 right behind the Beatles (they are the greatest group of artist) but if you're acknowledged as the greatest artist then once again who can be higher? The greatest group has already been established, so what's left after that, the greatest artist, and who's documented and acknowledged as that, NUFF SAID!!
-
left hand man:
Seventieslord, so you think that's a fair thing to say? You think it's fair that not only does McCartney have to take on Lennon, but the Beatles as well, you honestly think that's fair? Stack Lennon up against McCartney alone and it's no contest! No one would stack up against the Beatles, and then you add John Lennon who is one of the best songwriters, how on Earth is that fair? Even with all that against him Paul McCartney is still acknowledged and it's documented that he is the GREATEST SONGWRITER IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF POPULAR MUSIC!! Now everything else, everything else, is the lightweight affair!! Paul McCartney should be #2 right behind the Beatles (they are the greatest group of artist) but if you're acknowledged as the greatest artist then once again who can be higher? The greatest group has already been established, so what's left after that, the greatest artist, and who's documented and acknowledged as that, NUFF SAID!!
I'm trying to be objective, but I sense a bit of fanboyism coming from your direction, no offense. Anyway, I think the point they were making was that the album McCartney was lightweight compared to the Beatles material immediately preceding it, and the Lennon material being released at the same time. Obviously, one man's entire career shouldn't be judged by his debut album that ranks somewhere in the middle of his 25-album catalog in terms of quality. But the comment was fair as it related to that particular album.
-
seventieslord:
beatlesfanrandy:
Why should anyone be surprised by that. Stack up McCartney against John Lennon Plastic Ono Band and Abbey Road or Let It Be and you have a pretty lightweight affair.
Yes, that's definitely a fair thing to say.
Those are 4 very different records. But to dismiss McCartney with the perjorative "lightweight" is to ignore the influence of the album. And both of their debut albums were influential. Plastic Ono Band has inspired other singer-songwriters to be more revealing and confessional (some would say self-absorbed navel gazers) in their lyrics although there's not much new musically at all on the record. Meanwhile McCartney -- as the first one-man, do-it-yourself album recorded by a major artist -- has inspired many other artists to try a similar one-man approach. And some would say he should have polished the album more and it would have moved from really good to great but that might have detracted from its homespun charm. And now many artists who record music entirely on their own in their bedrooms cite McCartney and McCartney II as an influence. So both albums inspired followers -- in different ways. Plastic Ono Band happens to be Lennon's best album. He peaked early. And Paul was just getting started.
-
They have always been biased against Paul with a big love affair for John. They said John was the better singer, I mean nobody worth their salt can objectively say that and expect to be taken seriously.