Rolling Stone Top-100... Why No Paul?
-
Well songs like... Piggies Don't Pass Me By Mr. Kite All Together Now You Know My Name are more examples of filler, and they are not so great.
-
left hand man:
Well songs like... Piggies Don't Pass Me By Mr. Kite All Together Now You Know My Name are more examples of filler, and they are not so great.
Pretty much agree with all except Mr. Kite which I like a lot.
-
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.
-
Cord, that's a very strong statement, but I can't agree! The Beatles changed the entire game, not only did they change what came before, but they also affected what would come after! Their place in history is untouchable!
-
left hand man:
Paul McCartney would be the very same kind of star that he is right now! His post 70s material is more than strong enough, no not every single little note is Earth shattering, but there's more than enough quality material. Every single note by the Beatles or anyone for that matter isn't Earth shattering. Everyone has their so called filler. I say again, Paul McCartney should be #2 right after the Beatles! Where else do you place the documented and acknowledged GREATEST MUSICIAN, COMPOSER and SONGWRITER IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF POPULAR MUSIC?
Yes, left hand man, we know you would still go to macca's shows and enjoy them every bit as much... so would I. Would he pack 50,000 people into a stadium at the prices that he does now? Not on your life. And you know it.
-
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?
-
Seventieslord, I know no such thing, I don't sell McCartney's Wings/solo material short like some love to do! I think fans would flock to see McCartney do a totally different show!
-
left hand man:
Seventieslord, I know no such thing, I don't sell McCartney's Wings/solo material short like some love to do! I think fans would flock to see McCartney do a totally different show!
Well, then I'm afraid you're not seeing reality clearly. Paul's solo work is not nearly as popular, or critically acclaimed, or, frankly, as good as his Beatles work. Yes, people would still go to see him, but would nearly as many go? You're kidding yourself if you think so.
-
Seventieslord, you're entitled to your opinion. I just don't agree, this is Paul McCartney we're talking about, and I think you're fooling yourself if you think people are going to miss a chance to see him no matter what he's singing! His post Beatle fans are still alive and well! Some Wings/solo material is just as good as some Beatles!
-
left hand man:
Seventieslord, you're entitled to your opinion. I just don't agree, this is Paul McCartney we're talking about, and I think you're fooling yourself if you think people are going to miss a chance to see him no matter what he's singing! His post Beatle fans are still alive and well! Some Wings/solo material is just as good as some Beatles!
This is not a matter of opinion. PLENTY of people would say "oh, he's not playing any Beatles stuff? I'll pass." Or, "no Beatles stuff? I'd go, but not for $275." All due respect, your degree of objectivity has been made perfectly clear in this thread.
-
Plenty of people would also say, he's not playing any Beatles, this is what I've been waiting for!
-
left hand man:
Plenty of people would also say, he's not playing any Beatles, this is what I've been waiting for!
Yes, people like us. But if you think people like us outnumber "casual" music fans you're crazy.
-
Not to wade into this debate but I have to agree with seventieslord: it was shocking to me few people at both Brooklyn shows knew Paul's post-Beatle work aside from Band on the Run and Live and Let Die. Crowd was noticeably more silent during anything post-1970: it was a "top-40" Beatles crowd first and foremost with the Macca Maniacs in second. (I put the "top 40" in there because Your Mother Should Know drew tons of blankfaced stares from people around me!) Meanwhile, all I could think about was the fact that we only heard two post-Wings songs - Here Today and My Valentine - with a THIRTY YEAR gap spanning the two. Most in the crowd would be certainly none the wiser of that fact, nor would care frankly. It would be a fantastic experiment - certainly one we forumites would love! - if he did a week-long residency at a few venues promising only to play his post-Beatle work. Sure he'd get some curiousity-seekers and all the die-hards but he'd be at a push to fill some of the smaller places he's playing this time out just relying on those folks. I'm with you Left Hand Man re the quality of the material and the excitement it would cause for us fanatics but that's not going to fill arenas/stadia. I would love to be wrong but at the end of the day, Paul and his people aren't going to let us find out!
-
This is a great site with some well-done lists done up by panels of knowledgeable fans: http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/ In "greatest rock artists" they of course named the Beatles #1. Lennon, McCartney and Harrison are not on the list at all. This leads me to believe that they were excluded by virtue of being "counted" as Beatles. However, there are three Clapton entries here, just like on the RS list: solo, Cream, Yardbirds. But he was "just" a guitarist in the Yardbirds, and at best 20% of the creativity in Cream, so you could say he's really only there as a creative force once. Now, if Lennon and McCartney were to be placed on the list as solo artists, I speculate as follows: In the 1970s list, where they didn't have to worry about listing either of them twice, Lennon came out 18th and Macca/Wings 14th. Of course not all the decade lists are going to be perfectly congruent with the all-time lists, but if you compare to a few bands on the 70s list whose legacies are almost entirely based on the 70s, and then extrapolate to the all-time list, you can get a good idea of where they'd place them: Led Zeppelin: #2 in the 70s, #8 all-time Pink Floyd: #4 in the 70s, #13 all-time Eagles: #6 in the 70s, #63 all-time Sabbath: #11 in the 70s, #20 all-time Bowie: #13 in the 70s, #18 all-time Parliament/Funkadelic: #15 in the 70s, #54 all-time Fleetwood Mac: #17 in the 70s, #59 all-time Bee Gees: #19 in the 70s, #90 all-time Chicago: #20 in the 70s, #96 all-time Bob Marley: #21 in the 70s, #23 all-time EWF: #23 in the 70s, #100 all-time Al Green: #24 in the 70s, #24 all-time Kiss: #26 in the 70s, NR all-time The Clash: #27 in the 70s, #34 all-time Ramones: #39 in the 70s, #57 all-time Most of the above artists were not listed at all in the top-100 lists for the 60s or 80s. Those who were, were past 60th. If an artist was above 60th for another decade, then their all-time ranking would have to be considered too skewed by decades other than the 70s. Otherwise it was safe to say their legacy was entirely or mostly based on the 70s. Anyway, based on this, I can only conclude that John and Paul are not included in the all-time list as solo artists solely because they were Beatles. Clearly 14th and 18th in the 70s translates to a spot well within the top-100 all-time: I plotted these results out in excel and drew a trendline. It appears that 14th and 18th in the 70s correspond to about 44th and 58th all-time. That is fair for both of them. My personal preference would be that they're higher, but the history of rock/pop music is long and contains many sub-genres. Macca was also 71st in the 80s, and though he was not listed in the 90s and 00s, he's been releasing good music and is one of the five biggest concert draws in the world, so although Lennon did nothing after 1980 to move up (sadly) you have to think that Macca's 44th ranking is a bare minimum. How high up from 44th he should go is up for debate of course. But in any case, this is solid evidence that RS underrates Paul (by leaving him off the list) and overrates John (by putting him up in 31st). Interestingly, they attempted another list, the 300 greatest popular artists of all-time, and from the looks of it, it tries to account for all of the 1900s and on, and encompasses everything; Country, jazz, blues, pure pop (abba is on there but not on the 70s rock/pop list for example), crooners like Sinatra, super early pioneers like Jelly Roll Morton, Blind Lemon Jefferson, Scott Joplin and Lead Belly - and in seeminly equal proportion, I might add. http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_artistspop.html Anyway... you'll notice Macca's on there at 167 and Lennon at 174. (Beatles are #1). As Beatles and Macca idolizers, I know we'll all point at names they should be ahead of, but on an all-time, all-inclusive list like this, I can say it's reasonable. Again, though, proof that when everything is considered, It's not justifiable to have John Lennon a massive ways ahead of Paul Mccartney.
-
seventieslord:
left hand man:
Plenty of people would also say, he's not playing any Beatles, this is what I've been waiting for!
Yes, people like us. But if you think people like us outnumber "casual" music fans you're crazy.
Sad to say but you are so correct. What got me the last time I saw McCartney was that people around me did not even try to enjoy something they did not know. They started checking their phones for messages/texts, going to bathroom or get food beverage etc.
-
seventieslord:
This is a great site with some well-done lists done up by panels of knowledgeable fans: http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/ In "greatest rock artists" they of course named the Beatles #1. Lennon, McCartney and Harrison are not on the list at all. This leads me to believe that they were excluded by virtue of being "counted" as Beatles. However, there are three Clapton entries here, just like on the RS list: solo, Cream, Yardbirds. But he was "just" a guitarist in the Yardbirds, and at best 20% of the creativity in Cream, so you could say he's really only there as a creative force once. Now, if Lennon and McCartney were to be placed on the list as solo artists, I speculate as follows: In the 1970s list, where they didn't have to worry about listing either of them twice, Lennon came out 18th and Macca/Wings 14th. Of course not all the decade lists are going to be perfectly congruent with the all-time lists, but if you compare to a few bands on the 70s list whose legacies are almost entirely based on the 70s, and then extrapolate to the all-time list, you can get a good idea of where they'd place them: Led Zeppelin: #2 in the 70s, #8 all-time Pink Floyd: #4 in the 70s, #13 all-time Eagles: #6 in the 70s, #63 all-time Sabbath: #11 in the 70s, #20 all-time Bowie: #13 in the 70s, #18 all-time Parliament/Funkadelic: #15 in the 70s, #54 all-time Fleetwood Mac: #17 in the 70s, #59 all-time Bee Gees: #19 in the 70s, #90 all-time Chicago: #20 in the 70s, #96 all-time Bob Marley: #21 in the 70s, #23 all-time EWF: #23 in the 70s, #100 all-time Al Green: #24 in the 70s, #24 all-time Kiss: #26 in the 70s, NR all-time The Clash: #27 in the 70s, #34 all-time Ramones: #39 in the 70s, #57 all-time Most of the above artists were not listed at all in the top-100 lists for the 60s or 80s. Those who were, were past 60th. If an artist was above 60th for another decade, then their all-time ranking would have to be considered too skewed by decades other than the 70s. Otherwise it was safe to say their legacy was entirely or mostly based on the 70s. Anyway, based on this, I can only conclude that John and Paul are not included in the all-time list as solo artists solely because they were Beatles. Clearly 14th and 18th in the 70s translates to a spot well within the top-100 all-time: I plotted these results out in excel and drew a trendline. It appears that 14th and 18th in the 70s correspond to about 44th and 58th all-time. That is fair for both of them. My personal preference would be that they're higher, but the history of rock/pop music is long and contains many sub-genres. Macca was also 71st in the 80s, and though he was not listed in the 90s and 00s, he's been releasing good music and is one of the five biggest concert draws in the world, so although Lennon did nothing after 1980 to move up (sadly) you have to think that Macca's 44th ranking is a bare minimum. How high up from 44th he should go is up for debate of course. But in any case, this is solid evidence that RS underrates Paul (by leaving him off the list) and overrates John (by putting him up in 31st). Interestingly, they attempted another list, the 300 greatest popular artists of all-time, and from the looks of it, it tries to account for all of the 1900s and on, and encompasses everything; Country, jazz, blues, pure pop (abba is on there but not on the 70s rock/pop list for example), crooners like Sinatra, super early pioneers like Jelly Roll Morton, Blind Lemon Jefferson, Scott Joplin and Lead Belly - and in seeminly equal proportion, I might add. http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_artistspop.html Anyway... you'll notice Macca's on there at 167 and Lennon at 174. (Beatles are #1). As Beatles and Macca idolizers, I know we'll all point at names they should be ahead of, but on an all-time, all-inclusive list like this, I can say it's reasonable. Again, though, proof that when everything is considered, It's not justifiable to have John Lennon a massive ways ahead of Paul Mccartney.
Just a quick note since my wife was a really big Chicago fan in the 70's, how the heck have they not made the Rock and Roll HOF.
-
yankeefan7:
seventieslord:
This is a great site with some well-done lists done up by panels of knowledgeable fans: http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/ In "greatest rock artists" they of course named the Beatles #1. Lennon, McCartney and Harrison are not on the list at all. This leads me to believe that they were excluded by virtue of being "counted" as Beatles. However, there are three Clapton entries here, just like on the RS list: solo, Cream, Yardbirds. But he was "just" a guitarist in the Yardbirds, and at best 20% of the creativity in Cream, so you could say he's really only there as a creative force once. Now, if Lennon and McCartney were to be placed on the list as solo artists, I speculate as follows: In the 1970s list, where they didn't have to worry about listing either of them twice, Lennon came out 18th and Macca/Wings 14th. Of course not all the decade lists are going to be perfectly congruent with the all-time lists, but if you compare to a few bands on the 70s list whose legacies are almost entirely based on the 70s, and then extrapolate to the all-time list, you can get a good idea of where they'd place them: Led Zeppelin: #2 in the 70s, #8 all-time Pink Floyd: #4 in the 70s, #13 all-time Eagles: #6 in the 70s, #63 all-time Sabbath: #11 in the 70s, #20 all-time Bowie: #13 in the 70s, #18 all-time Parliament/Funkadelic: #15 in the 70s, #54 all-time Fleetwood Mac: #17 in the 70s, #59 all-time Bee Gees: #19 in the 70s, #90 all-time Chicago: #20 in the 70s, #96 all-time Bob Marley: #21 in the 70s, #23 all-time EWF: #23 in the 70s, #100 all-time Al Green: #24 in the 70s, #24 all-time Kiss: #26 in the 70s, NR all-time The Clash: #27 in the 70s, #34 all-time Ramones: #39 in the 70s, #57 all-time Most of the above artists were not listed at all in the top-100 lists for the 60s or 80s. Those who were, were past 60th. If an artist was above 60th for another decade, then their all-time ranking would have to be considered too skewed by decades other than the 70s. Otherwise it was safe to say their legacy was entirely or mostly based on the 70s. Anyway, based on this, I can only conclude that John and Paul are not included in the all-time list as solo artists solely because they were Beatles. Clearly 14th and 18th in the 70s translates to a spot well within the top-100 all-time: I plotted these results out in excel and drew a trendline. It appears that 14th and 18th in the 70s correspond to about 44th and 58th all-time. That is fair for both of them. My personal preference would be that they're higher, but the history of rock/pop music is long and contains many sub-genres. Macca was also 71st in the 80s, and though he was not listed in the 90s and 00s, he's been releasing good music and is one of the five biggest concert draws in the world, so although Lennon did nothing after 1980 to move up (sadly) you have to think that Macca's 44th ranking is a bare minimum. How high up from 44th he should go is up for debate of course. But in any case, this is solid evidence that RS underrates Paul (by leaving him off the list) and overrates John (by putting him up in 31st). Interestingly, they attempted another list, the 300 greatest popular artists of all-time, and from the looks of it, it tries to account for all of the 1900s and on, and encompasses everything; Country, jazz, blues, pure pop (abba is on there but not on the 70s rock/pop list for example), crooners like Sinatra, super early pioneers like Jelly Roll Morton, Blind Lemon Jefferson, Scott Joplin and Lead Belly - and in seeminly equal proportion, I might add. http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_artistspop.html Anyway... you'll notice Macca's on there at 167 and Lennon at 174. (Beatles are #1). As Beatles and Macca idolizers, I know we'll all point at names they should be ahead of, but on an all-time, all-inclusive list like this, I can say it's reasonable. Again, though, proof that when everything is considered, It's not justifiable to have John Lennon a massive ways ahead of Paul Mccartney.
Just a quick note since my wife was a really big Chicago fan in the 70's, how the heck have they not made the Rock and Roll HOF.
No idea. Although their 80s ballads are pretty much lowest common denominator Schlock, I admit it's a guilty pleasure of mine. And their 70s stuff is awesome.
-
seventieslord:
As I'm sure most of you know, Rolling Stone magazine compiled a list of the top-100 artists of all-time. It's a good list overall that serves its purpose - it's not too heavy on any one era, genre, gender or race, and seems to take influence and cultural impact into account as much as how the music has stood up. It also isn't based solely on fame; there are a lot of "hipster" choices on there... like Talking Heads, for example. I consider myself an appreciator of all good music, and I own at least an introduction by 75 of these 100 artists (and in many cases, a lot more) The Beatles are #1, I recall Lennon is about #31, but I couldn't believe there was no room for Macca on this thing. If you want to call the Beatles one entity, and say all their solo work rolls into that #1 ranking, fine. But if we're breaking them all up and judging them individually, I can't fathom how John can be so incredibly high on the list and Macca not at all. John's peak solo output was as good as, or perhaps better than Paul's, but I don't see how he achieved in 8 albums what Paul has in 25. I saw on these threads not too long ago, someone mentioned that without the Beatles, Paul would have eventually made a name for himself and would have achieved something in the Billy Joel/Bruce Springsteen level of fame and acclaim. I think that's a good start for a bare minimum. This is a guy who's a top-5 singer ever, a virtuoso musician and probably the best writer of melodies in the last 50 years (I know there were a few epic standards writers before him). Is this fallout of him being considered the "lightweight" of the core Beatles immediately following the breakup? Has he really not shaken that reputation yet? I look at someone like Elvis Costello, who made the list (I forget how high). I respect him greatly, but can anyone say his impact on music and his volume of great songs is anywhere near Paul's, really? They worked together in the 80s; does anyone think it was Paul going "OMG, I can't believe I'm working with Elvis Costello!!!" ? I doubt it.
RS Review of McCartney concert at Barclay's Center in Brooklyn http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/paul-mccartney-triumphs-in-brooklyn-20130609
Paul McCartney Triumphs in Brooklyn Barclays Center show features many rare live Beatles songs, including 'Eight Days A Week' and 'Lovely Rita' By Andy Greene June 9, 2013 9:10 AM ET The roughly 16,000 fans who poured into Brooklyn's Barclays Center for Saturday evening's Paul McCartney concert had a pretty good idea of what would unfold over the next few hours. Judging by the vintage t-shirts and balding heads, many had seen him before and knew it was only a matter of time before they swayed in unison to "Hey Jude," felt the heat from the "Live and Let Die" fireballs and screamed about the Jailer Man and Sailor Sam during "Band On The Run." Over the past eleven years, Paul McCartney has toured pretty heavily with the same four-piece band and these things have become ritualized. That's not to say the show has become boring. It's nearly impossible to feel anything but excitement watching McCartney play many of the greatest rock songs ever written, and he's careful to bring more than a few surprises each time he comes around.
Please follow above link to read further. Mod Edit Post edited to conform with copyright forum guidelines
-
What some of you don't seem to realize is that if McCartney did a concert filled with his post Beatles music it would be packed! It may not be packed with the die hard Beatle freaks, but it would be packed with all the fans of his post Beatles music! Paul McCartney has more than just Beatle fans, and there's plenty of them all over the world! You guys seem to be only thinking of America, this mans music is universal, people all over the world know his music, so let him do a Wings/solo tour and just watch who and how many come!!
-
seventieslord:
As I'm sure most of you know, Rolling Stone magazine compiled a list of the top-100 artists of all-time. It's a good list overall that serves its purpose - it's not too heavy on any one era, genre, gender or race, and seems to take influence and cultural impact into account as much as how the music has stood up. It also isn't based solely on fame; there are a lot of "hipster" choices on there... like Talking Heads, for example. I consider myself an appreciator of all good music, and I own at least an introduction by 75 of these 100 artists (and in many cases, a lot more) 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 review of McCartney last night at festival, once again very positive. http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/paul-mccartney-reigns-at-bonnaroo-20130615 If you want to call the Beatles one entity, and say all their solo work rolls into that #1 ranking, fine. But if we're breaking them all up and judging them individually, I can't fathom how John can be so incredibly high on the list and Macca not at all. John's peak solo output was as good as, or perhaps better than Paul's, but I don't see how he achieved in 8 albums what Paul has in 25. I saw on these threads not too long ago, someone mentioned that without the Beatles, Paul would have eventually made a name for himself and would have achieved something in the Billy Joel/Bruce Springsteen level of fame and acclaim. I think that's a good start for a bare minimum. This is a guy who's a top-5 singer ever, a virtuoso musician and probably the best writer of melodies in the last 50 years (I know there were a few epic standards writers before him). Is this fallout of him being considered the "lightweight" of the core Beatles immediately following the breakup? Has he really not shaken that reputation yet? I look at someone like Elvis Costello, who made the list (I forget how high). I respect him greatly, but can anyone say his impact on music and his volume of great songs is anywhere near Paul's, really? They worked together in the 80s; does anyone think it was Paul going "OMG, I can't believe I'm working with Elvis Costello!!!" ? I doubt it.
RS review from festival last night, once again very positive. See link http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/paul-mccartney-reigns-at-bonnaroo-20130615