"Underappreciated Genius."
-
The "New" album has got to be proof of genius. What a wow it is, just about every song could be a hit. Ok,not under-appreciated by the Grammy people, but we don?t seem to hear a lot of airplay except Queenie Eye and. Maybe New. Or is that because I tend to turn on the classic rock station?
-
rich n:
mccartneyandwings:
i disagree, i think paul mccartney is very much known for being a genius/god of music, just cuz its not preeched everyday in the papers doesnt mean people have forgot. I think some of the boardies on here will read one small bad comment about paul and blow it up like its blasfemy. ANY MUSIC EXPERT will tell you mccartney is a genius
I don't agree with that. While many do give him praise for his part in the Beatles, there are many others who dismissed his music after the Beatles - which is very unfortunate for these people, as well as short sighted on their part. The number of slights against Paul, particularly towards his song lyrics is staggering. Even nowadays, when the media has finally 'shrined' Beatle Paul, they ignore his post Beatles work for the most part (basically to many members of the media, Band On The Run was Paul's solo career). Most of the good reviews I read of Paul's mostly pertain to his live act, not his new records. I will say this in your favor though, it seems like Paul's solo career is in the process of being reassessed and more people seem to understand what they missed the first time around. And several of his latest albums have garnered better reviews...without being much better (if at all) than albums they've previously slammed. And lastly, since Linda's death and his subsequent very public divorce, I think the media has started to view Paul in a more sympathetic manner as well.
I think if you go back to every record album McCartney has done since 1989, they have been very well received for the most part by the critics, even RS magazine which BTW hailed TOW in 1982 as a "masterpiece".
-
Wendy2066:
The "New" album has got to be proof of genius. What a wow it is, just about every song could be a hit. Ok,not under-appreciated by the Grammy people, but we don?t seem to hear a lot of airplay except Queenie Eye and. Maybe New. Or is that because I tend to turn on the classic rock station?
"New" was ranked the 4th best album of 2013 by RS magazine and I don't recall reading one bad review about it.
-
Hmm if it was fouth ranked, there must be three mega geniuses out there.
-
Somehow or other found myself in several Beatle Facebook sites where several of the regulars seem to love to bash Paul's songwriting prowess to the point I even began to wonder a bit, at times--is he really all that great? Then I listen to his stuff again and realize anew there's no-one else like him, nothing else like magic Macca music--so much is aural ambrosia, the man sings like an angel on these and his melodies are beyond distinctive and just outstanding
-
Wendy2066:
Hmm if it was fouth ranked, there must be three mega geniuses out there.
lol. The other ones were Kanye, Daft Punk and Vampire Weekend.
-
Well, McCartney is in the Guinness Book of Records, and is financially independent, to say the least... but I think I understand what he means, there has been a tendency to trivialize his music. I'm wary to call other than Bach, Mozart, Beethoven geniuses, but in popular music'll certainly McCartney closest. The future will show whether he is remembered... in a hundred years, or three hundred years. :
-
I seriously have my doubts Paul will be remembered in two hundred years as a musical genius on his own. Not knocking him. But his solo career has not been much better than, say, Elton John or Billy Joel. But as a member of the Beatles he will be remembered for changing music. So will John Lennon, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr. Their collective genius will certainly shine on into the future, I believe. Yesterday and Let It Be are timeless. Silly Love Songs and With A Little Luck, not so much.
-
rich n:
And I still don't agree with you - to assume that I never thought any of Paul's work warranted negative criticism is pretty absurd and means you haven't read very many of my posts. And if you believe that Paul has garnered more positive than negative reviews during the majority of his post Beatles career is a pretty sheltered view in my opinion. All you have to do is go to google, search for reviews for each album - starting in 1970, and see for yourself.
Hate to disagree but go back and read the reviews of McCartney's records from FITD (1989) to the present and they are pretty darn positive even from Rolling Stone magazine. In addition, Rolling Stone magazine said that TOW (1982) was basically a masterpiece. I believe Rolling Stone ranked "New" as the 4th best record of the year it was released. McCartney got some criticism for some records but records like "McCartney II" and "Pipes Of peace" deserved to be slammed IMO.
-
Critics: RAM, Red Rose Speedway, Band On The Run, Tug Of War, Flowers In The Dirt, Flaming Pie, Chaos And Creation In The Backyard, Electric Arguments and Memory Almost Full has positive critics in every single website. We have 36 years between RAM and MAF. 36 years of music, recording new music constantly. Rock, pop, dance, electronic, classic works... he did almost everything. And about 30 top hits in his solo career. What more is necessary to be considered a legend? Some people say he will not be considered a legend because he didn't anything so special like in Beatles time. Well... this is impossible.
-
WingsOfMacca:
Critics: RAM, Red Rose Speedway, Band On The Run, Tug Of War, Flowers In The Dirt, Flaming Pie, Chaos And Creation In The Backyard, Electric Arguments and Memory Almost Full has positive critics in every single website. We have 36 years between RAM and MAF. 36 years of music, recording new music constantly. Rock, pop, dance, electronic, classic works... he did almost everything. And about 30 top hits in his solo career. What more is necessary to be considered a legend? Some people say he will not be considered a legend because he didn't anything so special like in Beatles time. Well... this is impossible.
Paul himself may be contributing to the demise of his solo career in history. If he chooses to forget songs like My Brave Face and Beautiful Night, how can he expect history to remember them?
-
RMartinez:
WingsOfMacca:
Critics: RAM, Red Rose Speedway, Band On The Run, Tug Of War, Flowers In The Dirt, Flaming Pie, Chaos And Creation In The Backyard, Electric Arguments and Memory Almost Full has positive critics in every single website. We have 36 years between RAM and MAF. 36 years of music, recording new music constantly. Rock, pop, dance, electronic, classic works... he did almost everything. And about 30 top hits in his solo career. What more is necessary to be considered a legend? Some people say he will not be considered a legend because he didn't anything so special like in Beatles time. Well... this is impossible.
Paul himself may be contributing to the demise of his solo career in history. If he chooses to forget songs like My Brave Face and Beautiful Night, how can he expect history to remember them?
I agree with you, Paul should play those songs in concert. But his works are there and you don't need a concert to hear them. I don't think a legend makes himself playing songs on a stage.
-
WingsOfMacca:
RMartinez:
WingsOfMacca:
Critics: RAM, Red Rose Speedway, Band On The Run, Tug Of War, Flowers In The Dirt, Flaming Pie, Chaos And Creation In The Backyard, Electric Arguments and Memory Almost Full has positive critics in every single website. We have 36 years between RAM and MAF. 36 years of music, recording new music constantly. Rock, pop, dance, electronic, classic works... he did almost everything. And about 30 top hits in his solo career. What more is necessary to be considered a legend? Some people say he will not be considered a legend because he didn't anything so special like in Beatles time. Well... this is impossible.
Paul himself may be contributing to the demise of his solo career in history. If he chooses to forget songs like My Brave Face and Beautiful Night, how can he expect history to remember them?
I agree with you, Paul should play those songs in concert. But his works are there and you don't need a concert to hear them. I don't think a legend makes himself playing songs on a stage.
Maybe. But we are talking about remembering. About memory. There are people attending his shows now who were not born when most of his solo material was recorded. They don't even remember that music NOW, it will be remembered less in decades to come. But they know his Beatle songs. Those will be remembered.
-
RMartinez:
I seriously have my doubts Paul will be remembered in two hundred years as a musical genius on his own. Not knocking him. But his solo career has not been much better than, say, Elton John or Billy Joel. But as a member of the Beatles he will be remembered for changing music. So will John Lennon, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr. Their collective genius will certainly shine on into the future, I believe. Yesterday and Let It Be are timeless. Silly Love Songs and With A Little Luck, not so much.
BS! Paul will be remembered as much as Mozart, Beethoven, and Bach in 200 years.
-
beatlesfanrandy:
RMartinez:
I seriously have my doubts Paul will be remembered in two hundred years as a musical genius on his own. Not knocking him. But his solo career has not been much better than, say, Elton John or Billy Joel. But as a member of the Beatles he will be remembered for changing music. So will John Lennon, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr. Their collective genius will certainly shine on into the future, I believe. Yesterday and Let It Be are timeless. Silly Love Songs and With A Little Luck, not so much.
BS! Paul will be remembered as much as Mozart, Beethoven, and Bach in 200 years.
That's my feeling as well...for sure!
-
WingsOfMacca:
Critics: RAM, Red Rose Speedway, Band On The Run, Tug Of War, Flowers In The Dirt, Flaming Pie, Chaos And Creation In The Backyard, Electric Arguments and Memory Almost Full has positive critics in every single website. We have 36 years between RAM and MAF. 36 years of music, recording new music constantly. Rock, pop, dance, electronic, classic works... he did almost everything. And about 30 top hits in his solo career. What more is necessary to be considered a legend? Some people say he will not be considered a legend because he didn't anything so special like in Beatles time. Well... this is impossible.
I will add the fact that "New" received very positive reviews also.
-
RMartinez:
WingsOfMacca:
Critics: RAM, Red Rose Speedway, Band On The Run, Tug Of War, Flowers In The Dirt, Flaming Pie, Chaos And Creation In The Backyard, Electric Arguments and Memory Almost Full has positive critics in every single website. We have 36 years between RAM and MAF. 36 years of music, recording new music constantly. Rock, pop, dance, electronic, classic works... he did almost everything. And about 30 top hits in his solo career. What more is necessary to be considered a legend? Some people say he will not be considered a legend because he didn't anything so special like in Beatles time. Well... this is impossible.
Paul himself may be contributing to the demise of his solo career in history. If he chooses to forget songs like My Brave Face and Beautiful Night, how can he expect history to remember them?
"Paul himself may be contributing to the demise of his solo career in history. If he chooses to forget songs like My Brave Face and Beautiful Night, how can he expect history to remember them?" Sadly, I don't think he cares about his solo career. He just seems to care about the legacy of "Beatle Paul". My goodness, even in the song "Early Days" he still seems obsessed about getting credit for writing Beatle songs.
-
beatlesfanrandy:
RMartinez:
I seriously have my doubts Paul will be remembered in two hundred years as a musical genius on his own. Not knocking him. But his solo career has not been much better than, say, Elton John or Billy Joel. But as a member of the Beatles he will be remembered for changing music. So will John Lennon, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr. Their collective genius will certainly shine on into the future, I believe. Yesterday and Let It Be are timeless. Silly Love Songs and With A Little Luck, not so much.
BS! Paul will be remembered as much as Mozart, Beethoven, and Bach in 200 years.
I agree. As a Beatle. Along with John Lennon. The Lennon and McCartney songwriting team. Paul solo? No. Not by a mile. That goes for John too.
-
RMartinez:
Maybe. But we are talking about remembering. About memory. There are people attending his shows now who were not born when most of his solo material was recorded. They don't even remember that music NOW, it will be remembered less in decades to come. But they know his Beatle songs. Those will be remembered.
Yes, maybe. But, let's suppose he regularly plays songs from FITD, FP and others. Will the people hear those albums? The main problem is that Paul has a 50 years career. Is a lot of time. Is pretty hard to be a living legend, to be fifty years in the top. Is probably that the artists from the '27 club' will be considered a legend forever. And why? because they are a myth, had an intense life and died young. John is part of that case too. If a man can make a 50 years career that means he can fail sometime. Imagine Paul dying at 30 or 40. He would be our Mozart.
-
WingsOfMacca:
RMartinez:
Maybe. But we are talking about remembering. About memory. There are people attending his shows now who were not born when most of his solo material was recorded. They don't even remember that music NOW, it will be remembered less in decades to come. But they know his Beatle songs. Those will be remembered.
Yes, maybe. But, let's suppose he regularly plays songs from FITD, FP and others. Will the people hear those albums? The main problem is that Paul has a 50 years career. Is a lot of time. Is pretty hard to be a living legend, to be fifty years in the top. Is probably that the artists from the '27 club' will be considered a legend forever. And why? because they are a myth, had an intense life and died young. John is part of that case too. If a man can make a 50 years career that means he can fail sometime. Imagine Paul dying at 30 or 40. He would be our Mozart.
I am not saying Paul is not a Mozart, just that it will be pretty hard to escape his Beatle legacy in history. Same with John Lennon, regardless of how he passed away. WE are all fans here and can agree that Paul is phenomenal. But good reviews of CDs may not be enough to say that, on his own as a solo artist, Paul McCartney was at the level of Beethoven or Mozart. What pieces of solo music do you think will be performed by orchestras and bands in 100 or 200 years? I can't think of any. But Yesterday and Hey Jude? Certainly.