"Underappreciated Genius."
-
In the words of Stella "It's About Fu*&%ing Time"
-
Yankeefan 7, that was McCartneys first Grammy performance you're speaking of and even that wasn't right! The first time the most legendary rockstar on the planet performs at the Grammys and you only allow him to do two freaking songs, he should of been allowed to perform a mini concert of at least three maybe four songs! There's just no question about it, Paul McCartney doesn't and probably never will get the real true credit he deserves!!
-
left hand man:
Yankeefan 7, that was McCartneys first Grammy performance you're speaking of and even that wasn't right! The first time the most legendary rockstar on the planet performs at the Grammys and you only allow him to do two freaking songs, he should of been allowed to perform a mini concert of at least three maybe four songs! There's just no question about it, Paul McCartney doesn't and probably never will get the real true credit he deserves!!
I would have loved to hear him do more songs also but is that amount of songs customary for any artist at the Grammy awards even a legend like McCartney. BTW - McCartney was a smash hit at that performance with a killer version of "Helter Skelter". I agree that McCartney will never get the credit he deserves for his work after the Beatles but that is just the fact we all will have to live with. I have accepted that fact and just enjoy his work by listening to his new CD's, going to his concerts and watching the DVD from his Citifield performance. If other people can't appreciate the total McCartney career, it is their loss not ours.
-
I don't know if it's customary for an artist to just do two songs, because as I posted Kid Rock did more than two?
-
I think the majority of his recent albums have received pretty good critical reviews - the ones I read of EA and Chaos were certainly good. Here in the UK he just doesn't get the sales any more. And I sometimes feel that he is of that era where success was measured in record sales - which isn't true any more and he still craves that kind of success. Which makes it all the more frustrating when he puts out songs like Dance Tonight as singles which, if we're honest, had no chance of charting significantly. I heard it played on the radio once. On Radio 2. I think that's also why he plays so many Beatles songs at his concerts - he knows that that's what a lot of people want to see and that's what gets him the amazing love and adoration he still gets at his concerts, but not in the charts. He's a (mega)star and like all showbiz people, he "wants to be adored" - as the Stone Roses sang! Sadly (as has been mentioned) I think he's seen as out of touch - an 'oldie' (whether or not that's true is another matter - it's perception). People don't give him a chance. My friends don't see why I like him and it's like they have a block and don't want to like him - he's not cool over here.
-
estrella de mar:
I think the majority of his recent albums have received pretty good critical reviews - the ones I read of EA and Chaos were certainly good. Here in the UK he just doesn't get the sales any more. And I sometimes feel that he is of that era where success was measured in record sales - which isn't true any more and he still craves that kind of success. Which makes it all the more frustrating when he puts out songs like Dance Tonight as singles which, if we're honest, had no chance of charting significantly. I heard it played on the radio once. On Radio 2. I think that's also why he plays so many Beatles songs at his concerts - he knows that that's what a lot of people want to see and that's what gets him the amazing love and adoration he still gets at his concerts, but not in the charts. He's a (mega)star and like all showbiz people, he "wants to be adored" - as the Stone Roses sang! Sadly (as has been mentioned) I think he's seen as out of touch - an 'oldie' (whether or not that's true is another matter - it's perception). People don't give him a chance. My friends don't see why I like him and it's like they have a block and don't want to like him - he's not cool over here.
I don't think Paul is alone in his so called uncool position,it's the same with most artists of his pedigree.If you get beyond a certain age you're dismissed as irrelevant no matter how good your current music might be.I think Paul's in a good position musically right now, which is quite a remarkable thing considering how long he's been in the music business.
-
BOYCIE:
estrella de mar:
I think the majority of his recent albums have received pretty good critical reviews - the ones I read of EA and Chaos were certainly good. Here in the UK he just doesn't get the sales any more. And I sometimes feel that he is of that era where success was measured in record sales - which isn't true any more and he still craves that kind of success. Which makes it all the more frustrating when he puts out songs like Dance Tonight as singles which, if we're honest, had no chance of charting significantly. I heard it played on the radio once. On Radio 2. I think that's also why he plays so many Beatles songs at his concerts - he knows that that's what a lot of people want to see and that's what gets him the amazing love and adoration he still gets at his concerts, but not in the charts. He's a (mega)star and like all showbiz people, he "wants to be adored" - as the Stone Roses sang! Sadly (as has been mentioned) I think he's seen as out of touch - an 'oldie' (whether or not that's true is another matter - it's perception). People don't give him a chance. My friends don't see why I like him and it's like they have a block and don't want to like him - he's not cool over here.
I don't think Paul is alone in his so called uncool position,it's the same with most artists of his pedigree.If you get beyond a certain age you're dismissed as irrelevant no matter how good your current music might be.I think Paul's in a good position musically right now, which is quite a remarkable thing considering how long he's been in the music business.
Dylan is not considered irrelevant and I believe he is older than McCartney. The same goes for Springsteen and he is 60. Maybe the difference is they never belonged to a group. Personally, I think critics are ahead of fans in regards to McCartney's later music. McCartney records have received critical acclaim and Grammy nominations but his record sales are mediocre at best. Most of the crowd at concerts just want to hear Beatle songs and they looked absolutely bored with any other songs.
-
'absolutely bored'--i doubt that
not from what i've seen on concert videos
someone with paul's astounding singular status in the music biz--and there's no one else--could never be considered i'rrelevant.' his career is one of a kind, and absolutely & utterly amazing and astonishing
it's astounding
there will never be another like him
and there's only one of him now, he's unique and his standing in the music business is untouchable and eternal. i'm gobsmacked the haters who claim to be 'fans' can't perceive all this. it's staggering they're haters too considering paul mccartney's exquiste artistry and brilliant ongoing achievements. he's never rested on his laurels, to say the least
we love you, macca
the lovers of life and light love you, those who are able to love
and to hear and perceive
-
SusyluvsPaul, you are exactly right! Some people make some of the most ridiculous statements when it comes to McCartney! Dylan and Springsteen are in the same exact position as McCartney! The young generation aren't paying them any attention just like for the most part they aren't paying attention to McCartney. I wonder do they get the cross section of generations at their shows the way McCartney does? How can anyone say the crowds are bored with McCartneys recent music when the concert videos show just the opposite? Some love to say that people walk out whenever he performs a non Beatle song, but they forget to mention the vast thousands that stay to hear the post Beatle songs! Also the number of people saying McCartney needs to change his setlist is growing more and more!
-
yankeefan7:
BOYCIE:
estrella de mar:
I think the majority of his recent albums have received pretty good critical reviews - the ones I read of EA and Chaos were certainly good. Here in the UK he just doesn't get the sales any more. And I sometimes feel that he is of that era where success was measured in record sales - which isn't true any more and he still craves that kind of success. Which makes it all the more frustrating when he puts out songs like Dance Tonight as singles which, if we're honest, had no chance of charting significantly. I heard it played on the radio once. On Radio 2. I think that's also why he plays so many Beatles songs at his concerts - he knows that that's what a lot of people want to see and that's what gets him the amazing love and adoration he still gets at his concerts, but not in the charts. He's a (mega)star and like all showbiz people, he "wants to be adored" - as the Stone Roses sang! Sadly (as has been mentioned) I think he's seen as out of touch - an 'oldie' (whether or not that's true is another matter - it's perception). People don't give him a chance. My friends don't see why I like him and it's like they have a block and don't want to like him - he's not cool over here.
I don't think Paul is alone in his so called uncool position,it's the same with most artists of his pedigree.If you get beyond a certain age you're dismissed as irrelevant no matter how good your current music might be.I think Paul's in a good position musically right now, which is quite a remarkable thing considering how long he's been in the music business.
Dylan is not considered irrelevant and I believe he is older than McCartney. The same goes for Springsteen and he is 60. Maybe the difference is they never belonged to a group. Personally, I think critics are ahead of fans in regards to McCartney's later music. McCartney records have received critical acclaim and Grammy nominations but his record sales are mediocre at best. Most of the crowd at concerts just want to hear Beatle songs and they looked absolutely bored with any other songs.
Most of the concert going fans are Beatle fans and not Paul fans so anything other than the familiar songs and they look uninterested. I did say most of Paul's peers not all of them yankeefan7. I think if Dylan broke wind the critics would say it was poetry,they have a blind spot for him as far as i can see.I have bought Dylan's last few critically acclaimed albums and they are okay but not as brilliant as the reviews suggest.I think Paul's albums over the last decade or so stand up well against Dylan's "masterpieces".
-
BOYCIE:
I think if Dylan broke wind the critics would say it was poetry
haha that is hilarious
-
kapoo:
BOYCIE:
I think if Dylan broke wind the critics would say it was poetry
haha that is hilarious
Thank you,i'm glad you found it funny.
I'm waiting for a Blowing In The Wind comment.
ops:
-
BOYCIE:
kapoo:
BOYCIE:
I think if Dylan broke wind the critics would say it was poetry
haha that is hilarious
Thank you,i'm glad you found it funny.
I'm waiting for a Blowing In The Wind comment.
ops:
Oh oh, now I have to link to this fictional report by critics (or more likely a PR person) of Paul putting on a "wind" concert. http://maccaboard.paulmccartney.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=2242222#2242222 (Start reading at a quoted comment by "Moggy.")
-
A large chunk of people are there only for The Beatles songs but some do end up coming out thinking ok the other stuff is quite good. From my point of view I get doubly excited when its not a beatles song and I think Paul appreciates it when he gets those people
-
I literally don't like Drive My Car anymore.. after seeing it on the tape of every live performance he's done since like 1995. Needs to give that one a rest.. Play all new stuff and Wings. I'd honestly rather hear the Beatles stuff just listening to my records. okay, anything he wants to play off Pepper, MMT or White album would be fine
-
To put it bluntly, he isn't fully appreciated as a genius because he's still around. And I'm grateful that he's still making music. But Lennon is more often considered the musical genius - now anyways - is because he was taken away from us for no reason and the only thing we have is the music he left us. At least that's the way I see it. The worst part is that it's as if The Beatles is all he did and "Band on the Run" and songs of that sort just came out in some mysterious forgotten period of his career. Rarely is Paul ever the "ex-Wing". He's always the "ex-Beatle".
-
Which is sad because I seem to recall reading someplace that Paul McCartney, solo and with Wings, was the second most successful chart act of the 70's. I believe Elton John was the first, but they were very close - I think Elton had like one or two more songs/albums on the charts or higher on the charts. That's something he should be proud of because he didn't just manage to survive he actually thrived. I wish I could remember where I read that so I'd know whether the source was accurate but at the time, I remember thinking the numbers sounded right.
-
darn the luck...'wings' music was and remains such joyous wild funky fun 'feel good' music and just because it's so 'feel good' and loosey goosey it's not as highly rated, that, along with paul's angelic baby face and often so smooth sweet singing tones, and also, i guess, having linda in his band and peeps automatically assuming 'his solo stuff isnt no where near as good as his beatles songs', all that demonically conspires to keep him from being as high up there in the music gods of mt. olympus as deserved...but mind you he's still plenty high
'high up there with the gods' i mean... make no mistake his standing as a music god is unchanging and eternal. it will automatically be intensifed to the nth degree when he sheds his mortal coil to play in 'rock n roll heaven' with the other all time greats, but damn
i'd rather he still be here and not be quite as much appreciated,
wouldn't you???? he's still very much beloved by millions
even now
we love you, macca my dear (kiss kiss)
-
Beatlesfan94:
To put it bluntly, he isn't fully appreciated as a genius because he's still around. And I'm grateful that he's still making music. But Lennon is more often considered the musical genius - now anyways - is because he was taken away from us for no reason and the only thing we have is the music he left us. At least that's the way I see it. The worst part is that it's as if The Beatles is all he did and "Band on the Run" and songs of that sort just came out in some mysterious forgotten period of his career. Rarely is Paul ever the "ex-Wing". He's always the "ex-Beatle".
Let's not get carried away here. He's referred to most often as ex-Beatle (though one certainly does see Wings references) because the Beatles were by any measure vastly more important culturally than Wings or Paul's solo stuff. The '60s were a time of massive cultural change, and the Beatles were at the absolute center of it -- a rare and special confluence of this particular band of musicians coming along at a particular moment in the evolution of U.S. and European society. That sort of lightning just doesn't strike twice in a lifetime.
-
YES, THE FABS were the first 'super group' or 'super star group' or whatever you want to call it. buddy holly and the crickets were good but nowhere near the exalted status the beatles achieved. the beatles blazed the path, but nobody else burned up that path as sizzling hot as they burned