Rolling Stone Top-100... Why No Paul?
-
BOYCIE:
yankeefan7:
McCartney's "boring" setlist is because people like you and me have seen him numerous times. The first time fans don't think it is boring at all. McCartney plays close to 3 hrs and some of the greatest songs in rock history. He is amazing musician and is quite charming in between songs. Yes, you and me know the stories but once again the first time people eat it up. The one time I saw Tom Petty he was good but had the personality of a potted plant.
As has been discussed infinitum on the ROCKSHOW section the first timers have had many chances to see Paul play his side of the Beatles oeuvre over the last few years. I think the only answer is for Paul to play a smaller tour like the early Wings gigs and announce them as a "non Beatle" show, but that's as likely as him dropping his current way of doing things. I see Steely Dan are playing the Beacon Theatre in NY seven times and are mixing it up quite a bit, similar to Tom Petty's residency there a few weeks back. STEELY DAN AT THE BEACON THEATRE Sept 30 New York, NY new Beacon Theatre * now Aja - Plus Selected Hits Oct 01 New York, NY new Beacon Theatre * now Greatest Hits Night Oct 03 New York, NY new Beacon Theatre * now Royal Scam - Plus Selected Hits Oct 04 New York, NY new Beacon Theatre * now Gaucho - Plus Selected Hits Oct 05 New York, NY new Beacon Theatre * now Audience Request Night Oct 07 New York, NY new Beacon Theatre * now Aja - Plus Selected Hits Oct 08 New York, NY new Beacon Theatr * now Greatest Hits Night
If McCartney did a non-Beatle show there would be a half empty hall and you could probably hear a pin drop during the show. Years ago, Springsteen did acoustic tour and he could not fill a 2,000 seat arena in Charlotte NC. He did hits but just acoustic version of them along with new songs from latest record at that time. Every time Springsteen played town with the E-Street Band he sold out 18,000 seat arena in a heartbeat.
-
yankeefan7:
If McCartney did a non-Beatle show there would be a half empty hall and you could probably hear a pin drop during the show. Years ago, Springsteen did acoustic tour and he could not fill a 2,000 seat arena in Charlotte NC. He did hits but just acoustic version of them along with new songs from latest record at that time. Every time Springsteen played town with the E-Street Band he sold out 18,000 seat arena in a heartbeat.
If Paul played smaller venues advertising "post Beatle show" i'm sure they'd still sell out, i bet you'd still get the Beatlefans in there anyway despite the post Beatle show advertising. I suggested a few years back banning Beatle fans to a Paul Wings/Solo show and they were all up in arms about it, so they'd still turn up. Paul could have a fantastic show without Beatles material if he picked it correctly.
-
BOYCIE:
yankeefan7:
If McCartney did a non-Beatle show there would be a half empty hall and you could probably hear a pin drop during the show. Years ago, Springsteen did acoustic tour and he could not fill a 2,000 seat arena in Charlotte NC. He did hits but just acoustic version of them along with new songs from latest record at that time. Every time Springsteen played town with the E-Street Band he sold out 18,000 seat arena in a heartbeat.
If Paul played smaller venues advertising "post Beatle show" i'm sure they'd still sell out, i bet you'd still get the Beatlefans in there anyway despite the post Beatle show advertising. I suggested a few years back banning Beatle fans to a Paul Wings/Solo show and they were all up in arms about it, so they'd still turn up. Paul could have a fantastic show without Beatles material if he picked it correctly.
I agree and I'm one of those 'Beatlefans' (please don't ban me!)
-
BOYCIE:
yankeefan7:
If McCartney did a non-Beatle show there would be a half empty hall and you could probably hear a pin drop during the show. Years ago, Springsteen did acoustic tour and he could not fill a 2,000 seat arena in Charlotte NC. He did hits but just acoustic version of them along with new songs from latest record at that time. Every time Springsteen played town with the E-Street Band he sold out 18,000 seat arena in a heartbeat.
If Paul played smaller venues advertising "post Beatle show" i'm sure they'd still sell out, i bet you'd still get the Beatlefans in there anyway despite the post Beatle show advertising. I suggested a few years back banning Beatle fans to a Paul Wings/Solo show and they were all up in arms about it, so they'd still turn up. Paul could have a fantastic show without Beatles material if he picked it correctly.
I've always said he should/could do that especially when he plays back to back dates in one town. Most people would go to both!
-
BOYCIE:
yankeefan7:
If McCartney did a non-Beatle show there would be a half empty hall and you could probably hear a pin drop during the show. Years ago, Springsteen did acoustic tour and he could not fill a 2,000 seat arena in Charlotte NC. He did hits but just acoustic version of them along with new songs from latest record at that time. Every time Springsteen played town with the E-Street Band he sold out 18,000 seat arena in a heartbeat.
If Paul played smaller venues advertising "post Beatle show" i'm sure they'd still sell out, i bet you'd still get the Beatlefans in there anyway despite the post Beatle show advertising. I suggested a few years back banning Beatle fans to a Paul Wings/Solo show and they were all up in arms about it, so they'd still turn up. Paul could have a fantastic show without Beatles material if he picked it correctly.
I agree with you Boycie, I'm sure they would sell out, if he did, lets say London, New York, LA or San Francisco. If he would do that, I would do whatever I had to do to get tickets and go!! I know plenty of people who would also go. Of course it would it would probably be like the Tom Petty show I went to at the Beacon Theater. Even tho Tom announced that it would be a Deep Tracks show, and asked for requests on his web site, people at the show did still complain and there were excess bathroom breaks... 3 of the songs that I had requested on his site the night before I went, were played... Willin' (Little Feat) Cabin Down Below and Honey Bee It was a show I'll never forget!! The true fans where ecstatic hearing songs that you normally don't get to hear!!!!! Each night had a separate setlist, Elvis Costello does a similar thing with his Spin the Wheel tour. I love that sort of thing and really wish Paul would do something like that "For the Wings fans" or the Paul McCartney fans We've had soooooo much Beatlles music, time for some Paul music!! Dare I say, I'm even ready for some more daring Fireman music or even Classical music! To me, that would be the Far Out There Tour
-
yankeefan7:
Michelley:
Maybe if they write a review that says McCartney walks on water and is God's gift to music you and others will be satisfied.
Come now. That's a strawman argument and you know it. As I just wrote in my last post: "It would be nice to see Paul get evenhanded treatment -- not special treatment for his weakest work, just proper respect for the genius of his best work." So no one here is calling for false praise of crappy work. And no one is saying RS has never praised McCartney. The point is the magazine's general bias in favor of exaggerating John's work and under-rating Paul's. I'm really not sure why you're continuing to argue this point as RS's favoritism toward Lennon is widely accepted. Even the magazine's own writers have admitted they changed reviews of McCartney's albums from positive to negative AT JANN WENNER's request. When RS manages to leave off McCartney's name from a list of 100 Greatest Artists, you think that's not purposeful bias? OK, then let's look at another RS list -- the magazine's list of 100 Greatest Guitarists. Somehow RS finds a way to include Lennon's name on that list -- at No. 55, for goodness sake. Which is ridiculous. Lennon was great at many things but the only person that would argue that he belongs on a list of 100 Greatest Guitarists in the history of rock and roll is a total Lennon fanboy. By comparison: Guitar World has a list of 100 greatest guitarists. John's name isn't on it. LA Times, Hot Guitarist and Spin Magazine all have lists of the Greatest Guitarists. Guess what? Lennon isn't on any of those lists, either. But somehow RS not only managed to put Lennon's name on its list of 100 Greatest Guitarists, but to put him at No. 55!! Seems like you are the one who is refusing to see what's right in front of you.
I will be the first to admit RS has favored Lennon, never have said any differently in all my posts. I will also tell you that I do not think any of Lennon's solo records are better than mediocre. IMO - RS thought of Lennon as more "avant garde" and "hip" than McCartney. I believe this fit the image of their magazine better. Paul and Linda were too "square" for them and I think this led to some of the favoritism. I also believe that once Lennon was tragically murdered everything he did was given a elevated status. I agree, Lennon was not a great guitarist and that is a good example of bias. I will note that McCartney was included on top bass guitarists (#3) by RS readers and the RS comment was quite complimentary. (see below) McCartney Bass Guitar "Paul McCartney gets so much attention for his brilliant songwriting in The Beatles that his stunning bass playing abilities are often overlooked. But listen to any Beatles songs and focus on his deeply melodic, flawless bass parts. He took on the role reluctantly after original bassist Stuart Sutcliffe left the group and nobody else wanted to take over his instrument. He soon mastered it, but also proved adept at guitar and drums - as he proved when Ringo Starr briefly quit during the making of 1968's The White Album and Paul took his place behind the kit in the studio with great ease." OK, my whole point has been to show that RS has consistently praised McCartney records even though they obviously loved Lennon. I would be willing to bet that at least 75% of his records after the Beatles have been positive reviews. RS has praised McCartney's best work IMO, BOTR, TOW and CHAOS are generally considered his best with the possible inclusion of "FP". You have agreed with me that RS has always praised his live performances. I also provided three examples of "McCartney" written Beatle songs making the top 20 of RS 500 Greatest songs. I will end with while RS (Wenner) may have put Lennon on a pedastal, McCartney has been consistently recognized as a brillant songwriter, musician and live performer by RS and not to see that is putting blinders on also.
Hi, I'm brand new on here and I have always been a huge Beatles fan especially a highly impressed John and Paul fan( I love them both equally) since I was 11 and I started collecting all The Beatles albums since I was 9 and I wasn't even conceived yet when they were first on The Ed Sullivan show.I really don't want to argue with fellow fans but I have to post this in response to what you said about John Lennon as a guitarist. In an online 1977 Eric Clapton interview,Eric Clapton In His Own Words he says that there was always this guitar game between John and George,and he said partly because John was a pretty good guitar player himself.He played live with John as a member of John's 1969 Plastic Ono Band. And there is a great online article by musician and song writer Peter Cross,The Beatles Are The Most Creative Band Of All Time and he says that many musicians besides him recognize Paul as one of the best bass guitar players ever.He too says that John and Paul are the greatest song composers and that to say that John and Paul are among 2 of the greatest singers in rock and roll is to state the obvious,and that John,Paul and George were all excellent guitarists and that George is underrated by people not educated about music but that Eric Clapton knew better,he also says that both John and Paul played great leads as well as innovative rhythm tracks. John Lennon co-wrote,sang and played guitar on one of David Bowie's first hits Fame in 1975 and David invited John to play guitar on his version of John's beautiful Beatles song Across The Universe. And a guy who runs Keno's Classic Rock n Roll Site and who runs a Rolling Stones and John Lennon fan site says in his review of The Beatles 1967-1970 Red Album damn The Beatles were one great group and he said in his great review of The Beatles 1962-1966 Red album, that if you don't love or at least like The Beatles and their music then you are not a true rock fan and more than likely will never ever get it. He also says that John Lennon showed on Paul's rocker Get Back why he should have played lead guitar more often because he did such a good job of it. He also said he played a pretty good slide guitar on George's For Your Blue and he said John also played one of the first and best acid guitar parts on his great rocker Revolution. So John was a very good guitar player and he should be on a 100 Greatest Guitar Players list. I'm not saying he should be in the top 10 0r 20 but in the middle where Rolling Stone has him is pretty good.He also played a really good early lead guitar on his great early 1964 rocker,You Can't Do That and I'm pretty sure he plays lead guitar in the first part of Long Tall Sally. He also plays very good both lead and rhythm guitar on the on his very good song,The Ballad of John and Yoko,and it's only he and Paul playing all of the instruments,I'm sure many of you know this already,but they did this recording on the spur of the moment without even asking George and Ringo! Paul said John was depressed about how he and Yoko were being mistreated by the press and public and even though he and John weren't getting along that good by then,John came to Paul's house and asked him to help him record the song.John,Paul and George's lead guitar playing that they took turns playing on the great hard rock song,The End is also great,and I once read a music critic like over 10 years ago I don't remember his name who said that John,Paul and George all played that guitar part really differently from each other and all had different styles.John's playing the last great part and this music critic said that it was distorted guitar,if figures that John would play the distorted part. And the other Magazines that didn't include John are *underrating* him!
-
Squid:
Michelley:
This all really ticks me off. Obviously.
I'm kind of ambivalent about about it. This is the old Soviet way of doing business - they make up a list that they deem ideologically or culturally acceptable; and because that's the nature of it, the list comes to be defined by what they left off it. It makes Paul a dissident.
Yes, but Paul really doesn't need recognition by Rolling Stone Magazine,(the h*ll with them!) Paul has an impressive doctorate in music from Sussex University from 1988 and one from Yale from just a few years ago,and he has 13 or 14 grammy awards in his solo career alone. He has also been in The Guinness Book Of World Records since the Fall of 1979 when he got a special award gold disc as The Most Successful Song Composer Of All Time.And The All Music Guide and other reviewers and music critics have given many of his solo/Wings albums good and very good reviews too.I personally only love Paul's post Beatles music from 1970-1975(although to be honest I don't own any of his albums after the late 70's except for Tug Of War which is good but not great like his early-mid 70's music. and I think Venus and Mars is the last great album he made,I think it's a great Wings rock album,I like it the best and it's like a Beatles quality album,every song on it is very good and great. Paul produced it himself and co-arranged the music. He produced a lot of his great early albums by himself,McCartney,Ram,Red Rose Speedway,and Band On The Run. This response was supposed to be to left hand man but something wrong happened.
-
Michelley:
beatlesfanrandy:
Holly Days:
Michelley:
It was in an interview in the past 2 years with Greil Marcus, the music critic. He tells the story of Wenner intervening to pressure the reviewer to change the review to a negative. The amazing thing is that Greil Marcus viewed that as a sign of what a good editor Jann Wenner was. : : Wenner believed John Lennon's BS blaming Paul entirely for the Beatles' breakup, so Wenner felt that the review of Paul's first album should take that slant against Paul. Back then the music media was a small incestuous little circle and Wenner's word carried a lot of weight. Now of course, no one pays any attention to anything Wenner or Rolling Stone says about music. I think Wenner forcing a reviewer to change a review to praise his pet artist is a sign of a terrible editor.
Thanks for the info - I *am* surprised by Greil Marcus' stance there, especially as he's always come across as (and been perhaps a tad smug about being?) a pretty independent thinker. Shameful indeed but again, par for the course for Wenner.
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. In all fairness I'd say Rolling Stone was being generous to Paul, or maybe has come around to it 40 years later. McCartney is a good album, but it's not 5-star by any means. And by the way, if you take the time to read the Lennon Interviews with Jan Wenner, John did not blame Paul for the breakup. He and Paul had major differences in how they saw their roles as artists, and I think those differences are why Paul is not on the Rolling Stone list as a solo. But John took responsibility for the break-up. Besides, as others pointed out, what Rolling Stone thinks on some poll is irrelevant.
Generous? By forcing the reviewer to change the review from positive to negative? You have a pretty skewed view of generous. And you've missed the point anyway. 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. No one said anything about giving McCartney 5 stars anyway -- though that is a subjective judgment. Plenty of people think Plastic Ono Band is just a spoiled self-absorbed multimillionaire moaning about his mommy issues. People can put a negative spin on anything if they want to. And that was my point: Wenner and his cronies in the small, blinkered world of music criticism in the 60's and 70's wanted to, and led a years-long campaign to routinely denigrate Paul's work. That state of affairs finally began turning around in the past 5 to 10 years with the creation of many new music sites on the Web and with Rolling Stone's own transformation into a dinosaur that doesn't influence the music scene one iota any more.
Paul wrote just as much if not more great songs on Abbey Road.I think You Never Give Me You're Money is one of the greatest songs on the great brilliant album,it's one of Paul's greatest later Beatles songs,it's just so great from start to finish,it turns into like several different songs in one(Paul's brilliant at this song writing style,he did this again with Uncle Albert and Band On The Run) and a harder rocker. I think it's better than George's songs and maybe even better than John's.Golden Slumbers is also really great and his singing once again is so great,and Carry That Weight is so great as is the End I think John and Paul co-wrote Carry That Weight is this true? And John doesn't have that many songs on the Let It Be Album,Paul's Let It Be is a beautiful song he wrote about his mother Mary who was a nurse and a midwife who as I'm sure you know died when he was only 14 and his brother was 12. He wrote it after he had a dream 12 years after she died and he saw her alive in his dream telling him to just accept things as they are.He said when he woke up he thought how wonderful it was to see and "be" with her again. He wrote this and the pretty The Long and Winding Road(both sad songs) shortly after his fiancee Jane Asher who was his girlfriend of 5 years,and they were engaged to be married for 7 months,left him for good after she came unexpectedly early from touring with her theater group and she found Paul in bed with another woman. And John's only great song on Let It Be is Acrosss The Universe.
-
bunwhisper:
Ok I think this is just the dumbest list ever. Paul is in great company--George is not on there either! One of the greatest guitarists ever, and he is not anywhere to be found. And Eric Clapton, probably THE greatest guitarist ever (though I prefer George did not crack the top 50! I think that says it all. So I would say if you print this thing out, it will make excellent toilet paper. But why must this come down to slagging on John? You will not find a bigger Paul fan than I, but I love John too. Plastic Ono Band and Imagine are brilliant. Who knows what else John may have done, had he lived as long as Paul? It is not necessary to say John was crap in order to boost Paul and Paul does not need that. I do think John was taken more "seriously" as an artist, because that is what he considered himself. Though he didn't always take himself seriously, either. Paul has not always respected his *own* work--he writes some great stuff and then we never hear it again in concert or anywhere else. Paul is about giving people what they want, John did not give a sh!t what anyone thought of him. Neither one is better for their view--it is just who they are as people/artists/entertainers. I prefer Paul's music, but I also love John's. I just hate seeing fans slag on one or the other to make their "favorite" look better. Anyway, I have hated RS for years because of their crappy treatment of Paul and I dont buy that rag because of it.
John Lennon did *a lot* to help(and Yoko deserves most of the credit for changing John for the better!) with the new feminist(which was misunderstood as "crazy" especially in the early 70's and still is misunderstood and misperceived by many people) cause as a man and a very popular influential respected man by both sexes.He spoke out in support of feminism on the January and February 1972 Mike Douglas shows he and Yoko co-hosted and he was very brave to co-write and sing the powerful,important and sadly still true in many ways) Woman Is The Ni**er Of The World(Paul wrote his own version of it in 1979,Day Time Night Time Suffering) on record which was banned off of a lot of radio stations,live on The Dick Cavett Show,and in concert at Madison Square Garden in the summer of 1972. He set a great example by being a nurturing house husband and father to Yoko and Sean at a time when it was rare and looked down on to be a house husband. Also his song Give Peace A Chance helped get Nixon to end the Vietnam war,because a lot of college aged people kept singing out side his White House.
-
left hand man:
It's absolutely ridiculous to say McCartney spent the 70s generally laying low! McCartney spent the 70s raising kids, putting a brand new band together in the face of absolutely unmerciful criticizm and crucifiction! Recording albums, putting tours together, breaking and setting world records, that doesn't sound like someone laying low! Paul McCartney spent the 70s creating a whole new career!!
Yes,except when Paul *did* write a strong political song Give Ireland Back To The Irish in early 1972,which is a very good Wings rocker,he was banned off the BBC for it! Maybe that's one of the big reasons he didn't write too many of these types of songs.
-
Ocean, You should check out Flaming Pie! I think it is Paul's best solo album from the later years. You're missing a lot if you stop in the mid '70's.
-
Thank you Nancy R! I have only heard a few songs from Flaming Pie but again,to me Paul's greatest sounding music was from 1970-1975. But as I said I honestly haven't heard his entire or even of some of his albums from the 80's,90's 2000's. And if you look up reviews of Paul's solo/Wings albums on music review sites,even Amazon.com,you'll see that more people give very good-great reviews to more of his albums from the period I'm talking about so I'm not alone in this.
-
Cord:
I believe Paul McCartney to be the greatest gift of music in the history of recording. Not only is he the greatest writer but also the greatest singer. No one is as capable of being as prolific in composing originality with a singing voice of such texture, tone and versatility. No one could nor can match his gift as a singer, nor as a songwriter. I knew these things long before he proved them. It's a recorded fact. I rest my case, case closed, case dismissed, not up for discussion.
I agree totally you forgot to mention his great bass,guitar,piano etc just about every instrument! And the only other singer song writer as great was John Lennon. They both were great singers with great voices and could both write and sing great love songs and great rock songs,but John really had a more unique beautiful sounding voice even when he spoke it was beautiful.
-
love2travel:
Rolling Stone never seems to treat Paul fairly It makes me mad every time!!
The 1992 Rolling Stone Album Guide gave Venus and Mars 3 1/2 stars,it should really be a 4 and 1/2 or 5.
-
left hand man:
Seventieslord, first off I'm very proud to be a Paul McCartney fanboy, so that's a compliment to me! I misunderstood you, I thought you were talking about McCartney in general, I didn't catch that you were just talking about the McCartney album. It's still not fair to compare their solo albums to the Beatles though!
As The All Music Guide says John *and* Paul are among two of the greatest singers in rock. But I think even though they both had great voices and wrote and sang great love songs and great rock songs,John had a more unique beautiful voice,even when he spoke.
-
kapoo:
yankeefan7:
Michelley:
Maybe if they write a review that says McCartney walks on water and is God's gift to music you and others will be satisfied.
Come now. That's a strawman argument and you know it. As I just wrote in my last post: "It would be nice to see Paul get evenhanded treatment -- not special treatment for his weakest work, just proper respect for the genius of his best work." So no one here is calling for false praise of crappy work. And no one is saying RS has never praised McCartney. The point is the magazine's general bias in favor of exaggerating John's work and under-rating Paul's. I'm really not sure why you're continuing to argue this point as RS's favoritism toward Lennon is widely accepted. Even the magazine's own writers have admitted they changed reviews of McCartney's albums from positive to negative AT JANN WENNER's request. When RS manages to leave off McCartney's name from a list of 100 Greatest Artists, you think that's not purposeful bias? OK, then let's look at another RS list -- the magazine's list of 100 Greatest Guitarists. Somehow RS finds a way to include Lennon's name on that list -- at No. 55, for goodness sake. Which is ridiculous. Lennon was great at many things but the only person that would argue that he belongs on a list of 100 Greatest Guitarists in the history of rock and roll is a total Lennon fanboy. By comparison: Guitar World has a list of 100 greatest guitarists. John's name isn't on it. LA Times, Hot Guitarist and Spin Magazine all have lists of the Greatest Guitarists. Guess what? Lennon isn't on any of those lists, either. But somehow RS not only managed to put Lennon's name on its list of 100 Greatest Guitarists, but to put him at No. 55!! Seems like you are the one who is refusing to see what's right in front of you.
I will be the first to admit RS has favored Lennon, never have said any differently in all my posts. I will also tell you that I do not think any of Lennon's solo records are better than mediocre. IMO - RS thought of Lennon as more "avant garde" and "hip" than McCartney. I believe this fit the image of their magazine better. Paul and Linda were too "square" for them and I think this led to some of the favoritism. I also believe that once Lennon was tragically murdered everything he did was given a elevated status. I agree, Lennon was not a great guitarist and that is a good example of bias. I will note that McCartney was included on top bass guitarists (#3) by RS readers and the RS comment was quite complimentary. (see below) McCartney Bass Guitar "Paul McCartney gets so much attention for his brilliant songwriting in The Beatles that his stunning bass playing abilities are often overlooked. But listen to any Beatles songs and focus on his deeply melodic, flawless bass parts. He took on the role reluctantly after original bassist Stuart Sutcliffe left the group and nobody else wanted to take over his instrument. He soon mastered it, but also proved adept at guitar and drums - as he proved when Ringo Starr briefly quit during the making of 1968's The White Album and Paul took his place behind the kit in the studio with great ease." OK, my whole point has been to show that RS has consistently praised McCartney records even though they obviously loved Lennon. I would be willing to bet that at least 75% of his records after the Beatles have been positive reviews. RS has praised McCartney's best work IMO, BOTR, TOW and CHAOS are generally considered his best with the possible inclusion of "FP". You have agreed with me that RS has always praised his live performances. I also provided three examples of "McCartney" written Beatle songs making the top 20 of RS 500 Greatest songs. I will end with while RS (Wenner) may have put Lennon on a pedastal, McCartney has been consistently recognized as a brillant songwriter, musician and live performer by RS and not to see that is putting blinders on also.
Well said Yankee totally agree. ..actually I don't quite agree with your statement about John's solo records being mediocre.. but that a matter of opinion.
John's first solo album,The John Lennon Plastic Ono Band is brilliant and it wasn't an easy thing for John to do since it was right after he went through primal scream therapy with psychologist Dr.Arthur Janov and faced for the first time his child and teen traumas that messed him up for most of his life.His Imagine album is great and brilliant in some ways too,and I really think his 1974 solo album Walls and Bridges is very good and # 9 Dream is a beautiful song I think it's one of John's best solo songs,he sang beautifully as usual and his music in it is beautiful too and produced this album and Mind Games by himself. I also think his songs on Double Fantasy are very good,I'm Loosing You is a very good slower rock song.Watching The Wheels,Beautiful Boy are also very good,and Starting Over is good too.
-
Cord:
Without Paul's ideas, composing, singing, and originality, the Beatles would have been pretty much finished by 1966. Also, before that, it was Paul's harmonies, bass playing and overall musical ideas which gave the other songs their quality. In essence, Paul should be at #1 on the list for his overall career, The Beatles #2.
No,not at all true,yes true about Paul's multiple musical talents,but there was still the great John Lennon in the band that John was the founder and leader in the early days of,and George Harrison was very talented too as a guitarist and song writer!
-
Nancy R:
Ocean, You should check out Flaming Pie! I think it is Paul's best solo album from the later years. You're missing a lot if you stop in the mid '70's.
-
seventieslord:
Cord:
Without Paul's ideas, composing, singing, and originality, the Beatles would have been pretty much finished by 1966. Also, before that, it was Paul's harmonies, bass playing and overall musical ideas which gave the other songs their quality.
I agree, obviously he was essential to the group... for my money, he was the best Beatle. That said, everything he did without the Beatles is off-limits for these purposes. His awesome work with the Beatles is already reflected in their #1 ranking. You have to imagine his career started in 1970 and that his concerts weren't full of Beatles hits. Then where would he rank all-time?
The Beatles # 1 ranking is *equally* due to both the Great John Lennon's singing and song writing as well as Paul's.
-
seventieslord:
To satisfy my curiosity, I took the next batch of 27 songs that seem to be the most significant. Here they are. And I Love Her Every Little Thing Glass Onion Golden Slumbers suite Good Morning Good Morning Happiness Is a Warm Gun Here, There and Everywhere I Wanna Be Your Man I Want You (She?s So Heavy) If I Needed Someone I?ll Follow the Sun I?ll Get You I?m Down I?m Looking Through You In My Life I?ve Got a Feeling Mean Mr. Mustard suite Norwegian Wood Nowhere Man Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da Oh! Darling P.S. I Love You Please Please Me Savoy Truffle Things We Said Today Tomorrow Never Knows Two Of Us That's broken down as follows: McCartney: 14 Lennon: 10 Eyeball to Eyeball: 1 Harrison: 2 So now that pretty much half their recorded output is counted, we're at: McCartney: 43 Lennon: 25 Eyeball to Eyeball: 6 Harrison: 6 Covers: 1 He could therefore be credited with 57% of the songwriting on the Beatles' best output. It's no secret that I prefer McCartney, but even this surprises me. As a young fan I never paid attention to who wrote, or even sung, the songs individually (except Ringo, I obviously knew when Ringo was singing). Nowadays I am very well versed in all that stuff but this is the first time I've really went back and revisited who was responsible for more top material.
Sorry but it's well known that John Lennon dominated in the early Beatles years.On the very good A Hard Day's Night album,Paul has three great songs,two beautiful accoustic songs,And I Love Her and Things We Said Today and the great rocker,Can't Buy Me Love,but all of the rest of the album is mostly all John and some co-written with Paul.