Rolling Stone Top-100... Why No Paul?
-
audi:
But there are many brilliant lyricists whose records are mediocre.
True. But I wouldn't dare compare Elvis to them. I'm comparing him to the likes of Dylan, the Stones, Chuck Berry and Hendrix.
-
Yes...and he outsold all of them combined. And Hendrix was a diehard Elvis fan. Dylan said Elvis' version of "Tomorrow Is A Long Time" is the best version of every Dylan-cover ever made.
-
Getting back to the subject, this list is practically moot because it left out Wings/McCartney.
-
yankeefan7:
Michelley:
That is an old list. It came out in 2008 or so. Why isn't Paul on it? Because Rolling Stone's editor Jann Wenner had/has a massive fanboy crush on John Lennon. Wenner felt it was his duty to inflate John's solo work and diminish Paul's. I remember being irritated by that Rolling Stone list in 2008. Since then, I've learned the lengths to which Jann Wenner went to harm Paul's reputation. When Paul's first solo album came out, the Rolling Stone reviewer at the time gave it a positive review. Jann Wenner intervened and actually pressured the reviewer to rewrite it and make it a negative review. That's how much of a Lennon fanboy Wenner was. Appalling behavior that harmed Paul's reputation for years. The thing is: It's been fun to watch Rolling Stone eat crow lately. For example Rolling Stone gave Ram a terrible review when that album first came out. But when Paul reissued Ram a year ago -- now that the album is widely regarded as Paul's masterpiece and got glowing reviews -- Rolling Stone hilariously gave the reissue 4.5 stars. Paul must have felt good about that. In short: Rolling Stone magazine is a joke. So I wouldn't lose any sleep over any of its idiotic lists. After all, this is the magazine that put Mick Jagger's horrible Superheavy album on its list of the top 50 albums of 2011.
Why? Because Jann Wenner also has a crush on Mick Jagger -- not because the album was any good. If John Lennon belongs on any such list, then so does Paul. But it's taken Paul most of his solo career to get the appreciation he deserves for his best albums.
Good points but you have to admit RS has given McCartney good reviews for his records the last 10-20 years. RS has also been very complimentary about McCartney's live performances..
Actually Rolling Stone hasn't been particularly generous with its reviews of Paul's recent albums of original songs. RS hasn't given 4 stars to a single one of Paul's recent albums put out under his own name. Not one. This is a magazine that gave 4 stars to that atrocious Mick Jagger Superheavy album and yet didn't give 4 stars to Chaos and Creation????? RS gave Memory Almost Full 3.5 stars. Chaos got 3 stars. You know what recent album RS gave 4 stars to? Paul's covers album: Run Devil Run. That's a backhanded compliment if ever I've seen one: It's basically saying "see, his best album is him singing someone else's songs." Don't get me wrong: I love Run Devil Run. But both Rolling Stone and that blowhard critic Robert Christgau gave the highest ratings they'd ever given to one of Paul's albums to Run Devil Run. Don't tell me that wasn't a purposeful slight. It was. Jann Wenner and Christgau are friends and both worship Lennon. And if you go to the RS page that lists the magazine's supposedly current ratings of Paul's albums (http://www.rollingstone.com/music/artists/paul-mccartney/albumguide),,) this pathetic excuse for a magazine hasn't even updated its ratings of Paul's early albums. Rolling Stone still lists Ram as 3 stars even though its most recent review gave the Ram reissue 4.5 stars. It's still listing McCartney II as 2 stars even though its most recent review gave the McCartney II reissue 3 stars. It still lists McCartney as 2.5 stars even though the magazine's most recent review gave the McCartney reissue 3.5 stars. So it's STILL lowballing Macca as a songwriter and a solo artist -- and has done so for 40 freaking years. It's new music sites like Pitchfork and Allmusic and The Quietus and the AV Club that have led the way in rethinking Paul's solo work. NOT Rolling Stone. Oh, and guess which recent solo album of Paul's that Rolling Stone did give 4 stars to: Electric Arguments. So it gave 4 stars to an album that it doesn't even list under Paul's name (just under "The Fireman") and it doesn't even list the album on its page about McCartney's solo work. Check the list --:http://www.rollingstone.com/music/artists/paul-mccartney/albumguide -- Electric Arguments is not there. But, yes, I'll grant you that Rolling Stone has thrown Paul a bone by praising his live performances. They've just undercut him as a songwriter since he left the Beatles. Edited to add: Squid's point about John and Paul being used in the culture wars is spot on. This all really ticks me off. Obviously.
-
audi:
Yes...and he outsold all of them combined. And Hendrix was a diehard Elvis fan. Dylan said Elvis' version of "Tomorrow Is A Long Time" is the best version of every Dylan-cover ever made.
Sales aren't the main criteria here. Or rather, they shouldn't be. These seem like isolated little matters. The Beatles were Elvis fans too, but they were better. Elvis was a fan of many artists that came before him that he ultimately became way better than. And what Dylan said about "Tomorrow is a Long Time" may very well be the case, but that's hardly evidence he's a better artist than Dylan. And I realize this is all subjective...
-
The media , of which Rolling Stone is part of, has always been jealous of Paul McCartney. That's why they play him down, always have. They resent anyone they can't copy, and no one can copy McCartney's talent - never could, so they try to minimize his talent and pretend he doesn't exist.
-
seventieslord:
audi:
Yes...and he outsold all of them combined. And Hendrix was a diehard Elvis fan. Dylan said Elvis' version of "Tomorrow Is A Long Time" is the best version of every Dylan-cover ever made.
Sales aren't the main criteria here. Or rather, they shouldn't be. These seem like isolated little matters. The Beatles were Elvis fans too, but they were better. Elvis was a fan of many artists that came before him that he ultimately became way better than. And what Dylan said about "Tomorrow is a Long Time" may very well be the case, but that's hardly evidence he's a better artist than Dylan. And I realize this is all subjective...
The Beatles completed the development of rock & roll. Can't deny that -- the genre just wouldn't be the same without them. Still, as writers are the focus of this debate, does Buddy Holly outrank Elvis?
-
audi:
seventieslord:
audi:
Yes...and he outsold all of them combined. And Hendrix was a diehard Elvis fan. Dylan said Elvis' version of "Tomorrow Is A Long Time" is the best version of every Dylan-cover ever made.
Sales aren't the main criteria here. Or rather, they shouldn't be. These seem like isolated little matters. The Beatles were Elvis fans too, but they were better. Elvis was a fan of many artists that came before him that he ultimately became way better than. And what Dylan said about "Tomorrow is a Long Time" may very well be the case, but that's hardly evidence he's a better artist than Dylan. And I realize this is all subjective...
The Beatles completed the development of rock & roll. Can't deny that -- the genre just wouldn't be the same without them. Still, as writers are the focus of this debate, does Buddy Holly outrank Elvis?
No. I would not put Holly ahead of Elvis. His peak was not nearly as high, and sadly, lacks any kind of longevity to flesh out his career. He was only slightly more prolific a lyric writer than Elvis. On the compilation I have, he ?co-wrote? about two thirds of them, with no sole songwriting credits going to him. He?s got lots going for him, and his songwriting is one advantage over Elvis, but the total package? No way. Chuck Berry, on the other hand... a legit case could be built.
-
Truce.
We agree.
-
yeah its a shame that rolling stones didn't acknowledge Paul. I wonder if he is offended by this? If I was he I would be. lol
-
Is just one more odious list, means nothing, if you saw the magazine covers, Paul has several, and I don't think they'd put someone "bad" on their covers.
-
seventieslord:
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 has *always* treated Paul like a red-headed step-child. They have never respected him. I am not surprised at all that they ignored him. Was George on the list?
-
There's no excuse for this outright insanity! How in the world can the most famous, most successful, the guy who is acknowledged as the greatest rock star on the freaking planet, known as the greatest singer songwriter in the history of music not be on such a list! Rollingstone should be ashamed of themselves and as far as I'm concerned their so called list has absolutely no credibility whatsoever! When it comes to Paul McCartney Rollingstone doesn't have a freaking clue!!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
RS's original reviews of Macca albums from Venus & Mars thru MII were absolutely brutal and personal. There were often comparisons to the other Beatles, mostly Lennon. Macca was never given a fair shot by the magazine. Only in his 40s & beyond did McCartney get the "sympathetic" nod from critics.
-
Rolling Stone never seems to treat Paul fairly
It makes me mad every time!!
-
Jerry Lee Lewis should be quite a bit higher up on that list I think, he was the only rocker in the 50's that had a chance to standing up against Elvis, and he had many classic singles in the 50's, late 60's and 70's. He is one of the most respected country singers as well as the last living major Sun Records artist and has possibly one of the most rock n roll careers of all time. He makes Keith Richards look like a pansy. Edit: Oh yeah and he's still rockin' today!
-
This sums up what RollingStone.com thinks of Paul sadly... http://www.rollingstone.com/music/artists/paul-mccartney Paul McCartney's gift for light-pop songwriting has made him the most commercially successful ex-Beatle and one of the most successful songwriters of the century. He answered his critics in 1976 with the single "Silly Love Songs," one of many post-Beatles hits. If, as some critics maintain, his solo work hasn't measured up to the standards of his collaborations with John Lennon, McCartney has still shown a consistent talent for writing songs that are tuneful and popular.