"Underappreciated Genius."
-
HaileyMcComet:
RMartinez:
You're fairly certain in 200 years, Paul will be on the same musical standing as Mozart and Beethoven for having composed songs like Silly Love Songs, With A Little Luck, Listen to What the Man Said, Ebony and Ivory, Jet, Too Many People, My Brave Face, and Hope of Deliverance? Wow.
He may or may not be known in 200 years, but if he is, it will be for the big songs that pass the test of time. Just like Beethoven and Mozart. Ask 100 random people to name anything by Beethoven and you're not going to hear a lot about the little bits and pieces that rarely get played anymore.
That is exactly my point. He will be known for the great music he has composed, which mostly was with the Beatles. I'm not knocking his solo career, anyone would love to have it. It rivals that of Elton John and Billy Joel. I am just not convinced any of his solo material will be remembered in the same way Yesterday or Let It Be will be remembered. I may be wrong.
-
RMartinez:
I may be wrong.
The thing is, none of us will ever know. This is what I like about this site. People get all worked up over questions that none of us will ever be able to answer.
-
HaileyMcComet:
RMartinez:
I may be wrong.
The thing is, none of us will ever know. This is what I like about this site. People get all worked up over questions that none of us will ever be able to answer.
Yup. What we can know is what we experience today. And today, Paul's solo career is clearly miles behind his Beatles legacy in just about every aspect.
-
In 200 years, people might think The Beatles were Ringo's back up band before his clone colonized Mars.
-
HaileyMcComet:
In 200 years, people might think The Beatles were Ringo's back up band before his clone colonized Mars.
Which may be the coolest outcome of all of this!
-
RMartinez:
HaileyMcComet:
RMartinez:
I may be wrong.
The thing is, none of us will ever know. This is what I like about this site. People get all worked up over questions that none of us will ever be able to answer.
Yup. What we can know is what we experience today. And today, Paul's solo career is clearly miles behind his Beatles legacy in just about every aspect.
I think if Paul had released 12 Band On The Run type quality albums straight after the fabs he still would be fighting the Beatles legacy, he can't compete on his own even if he released the best music ever.
-
RMartinez:
HaileyMcComet:
In 200 years, people might think The Beatles were Ringo's back up band before his clone colonized Mars.
Which may be the coolest outcome of all of this!
We can only hope.
-
BOYCIE:
I think if Paul had released 12 Band On The Run type quality albums straight after the fabs he still would be fighting the Beatles legacy, he can't compete on his own even if he released the best music ever.
You're probably right. No one can compete with The Beatles, not even individual Beatles.
-
"Band on the Run" is so overrated, perhaps not as an album with good music, but as a gateway to McCartney's solo career. It's not miles ahead of everything else in his discography, it's just another good record.
-
HaileyMcComet:
BOYCIE:
I think if Paul had released 12 Band On The Run type quality albums straight after the fabs he still would be fighting the Beatles legacy, he can't compete on his own even if he released the best music ever.
You're probably right. No one can compete with The Beatles, not even individual Beatles.
It's weird with Paul's post Beatles career in the main, most people pick out Paul's worst songs to say he's crap and never mention all the great stuff, it's Mary Had A Little Lamb, Silly Love Songs, Mull Of Kintyre, Ebony And Ivory or We All Stand together that seem to define him here in the UK not Band On The Run, Jet, Live And Let Die, Maybe I'm Amazed and No More Lonely Nights etc. I was watching the TMZ report on Paul and Kanye at Stella's fashion show and the younger guys were saying, "McCartney has put out some of the worst songs ever", "and some of the best ever"said an older guy, but this does seem how Paul is perceived by his weaker material than his best, funny old world. By the way Paul has put out some mediocre stuff in his time, but worst ever, NOOOOOOOOOOO!
-
Hendrix Ibsen:
"Band on the Run" is so overrated, perhaps not as an album with good music, but as a gateway to McCartney's solo career. It's not miles ahead of everything else in his discography, it's just another good record.
It's not my favourite by any means, but most "critics" seem to value it over everything else and call it the only "classic" album in Paul's canon? My point being if he released 12 classic albums straight he would still be over shadowed by the Beatles legacy!
-
Yeah right, sometimes I wonder if the critics took a wrong turn with McCartney's music in the 70s. For some reason... albums like "Ram" and "London Town" was so badly recieved and it's among the best of the decade to my ears. And I say that as a listener who is generally interested in music, I have a huge and varied record collection, I'm not just a "stupid" fan.
-
Hendrix Ibsen:
Yeah right, sometimes I wonder if the critics took a wrong turn with McCartney's music in the 70s. For some reason... albums like "Ram" and "London Town" was so badly recieved and it's among the best of the decade to my ears. And I say that as a listener who is generally interested in music, I have a huge and varied record collection, I'm not just a "stupid" fan.
I listen to London Town a lot more than Band On The Run! My music collection is very eclectic too, it's a little odd if you were to listen to one artist forever. My gigging is pretty varied too, lucky to see ELO in Hyde Park and Kate Bush at the Hammersmith Apollo within two days of each other last year, but i get out to local gigs in Cambridge and Ipswich as well as the big London shows too.
-
BOYCIE:
Hendrix Ibsen:
"Band on the Run" is so overrated, perhaps not as an album with good music, but as a gateway to McCartney's solo career. It's not miles ahead of everything else in his discography, it's just another good record.
It's not my favourite by any means, but most "critics" seem to value it over everything else and call it the only "classic" album in Paul's canon? My point being if he released 12 classic albums straight he would still be over shadowed by the Beatles legacy!
BOTR is a good, solid album and was to my mind Paul's best post-Beatles record up to that point, but it's definitely not my favorite Paul album, or even my favorite Wings album.
-
BOYCIE:
It's weird with Paul's post Beatles career in the main, most people pick out Paul's worst songs to say he's crap and never mention all the great stuff, it's Mary Had A Little Lamb, Silly Love Songs, Mull Of Kintyre, Ebony And Ivory or We All Stand together that seem to define him here in the UK not Band On The Run, Jet, Live And Let Die, Maybe I'm Amazed and No More Lonely Nights etc. I was watching the TMZ report on Paul and Kanye at Stella's fashion show and the younger guys were saying, "McCartney has put out some of the worst songs ever", "and some of the best ever"said an older guy, but this does seem how Paul is perceived by his weaker material than his best, funny old world. By the way Paul has put out some mediocre stuff in his time, but worst ever, NOOOOOOOOOOO!
I've noticed that the people who dump all over Paul can't name more than a few of his songs. They can name something that wasn't very popular or some of the moon, June, spoon songs. Then Paul fans say bad things about those same songs and the anti-Pauls take that as confirmation that their assumptions based on little information is correct. I think if they knew more about his full discography, most people would be pretty impressed. The problem is that Paul's been around so long that too many people only know one time period and think everything he's done is that.
-
Bruce M.:
BOTR is a good, solid album and was to my mind Paul's best post-Beatles record up to that point, but it's definitely not my favorite Paul album, or even my favorite Wings album.
It was exactly what he needed after getting his balls kicked around for a few years by the critics. Can we say balls here?
-
ops: Looking back through my personal archive here it goes back to 2008 and I'd joined shortly before the year 2008 came in, so I reckon all my stuff IS still here. Mea culpa, mea culpa. Yada yada yada, why doesn't she just shut up, I can't hep it I like to scribble. Thank you for not throwing out my scribbles I wuv you
-
First off, Paul is an appreciated Genius and he holds many records and awards that prove that. However, he is under appreciated for his scope, the likes of no other. His range of music, from classic to pop, everything in between, to hip hop now... A Ballet, Ecce Cor Meum, Rushes, Electric Arguments the Celebration and Flute Enchantee, etc.... it's just unparalleled. I've read he's got more than 500 of his own paintings! Now that is something I'm really curious about... There are some really amazing ones that I've seen. I wonder if there are photos too? He is a concerned citizen of the world, an extremely caring and giving person who without fanfare does good deeds in a typical British modest and understated way. He is one of the most famous people in the world, yet he carries on as a regular guy going about his day...to a jet setter of the world. Paul is a true role model of an honestly good person. Sometimes, I wish he'd toot his own horn, promote his Wings and Solo material more. He has given away some great songs to other musicians! He's one of the really good Genius guys.
-
HaileyMcComet:
Bruce M.:
BOTR is a good, solid album and was to my mind Paul's best post-Beatles record up to that point, but it's definitely not my favorite Paul album, or even my favorite Wings album.
It was exactly what he needed after getting his balls kicked around for a few years by the critics. Can we say balls here?
Yes "balls" is fine. You can't say CRITICS! The locals around these here parts won't stand for ANY criticism...
-
BOYCIE:
Hendrix Ibsen:
"Band on the Run" is so overrated, perhaps not as an album with good music, but as a gateway to McCartney's solo career. It's not miles ahead of everything else in his discography, it's just another good record.
It's not my favourite by any means, but most "critics" seem to value it over everything else and call it the only "classic" album in Paul's canon? My point being if he released 12 classic albums straight he would still be over shadowed by the Beatles legacy!
It's not my favourite either.....There go those critics again! The Lennon vs McCartney ones, they really get to me I guess we're all critics of sorts, we just don't get paid Well at least he had success after the Beatles...there's so many articles about former performers who never went on to do better in subsequent endeavors. Have actually gone to see some of those artists, just to hear the old songs! That's why it's so nice to hear the non Beatle songs at Paul's concerts!