Rolling Stone Top-100... Why No Paul?
-
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.
-
beatlesfanrandy:
It's not about being a singer. They have a singer poll too. RS has polls for everything.
I'm talking about their best singer list, they put John ahead which is just laughable.
-
Yeah, well, I consider it on oversight really. Paul hasn't had a big hit in a long time, but most of his tunes with Wings and the Beatles were really big hits. His individual stuff has been a bit -- mediocre. I feel its fro lack of collaboration. I think his tunes, with collaboration, are awesome. Individually, they are good, but lack some snap and eyebrow raising poppers. Paul has spent many hours mastering a tune in his head. But he always needed someone like Denny Lane, Linda, or John to make the tune turn. He always had the basis and the roots, but not be able to get it through. Example, "Blackbird". It was never a radio hit. If the Beatles collaborated on it, would it be different? It is an awesome song, and geez it must've been played on radios and jukeboxes and living room stereos a couple billion times by now -- but never a big air wave hit. Great song yes. Popular, yes. A long lasting song for the Beatles legacy, but only on Beatle on it. Praise to Paul for storming it out and getting it done. I read it was several years in the making. Paul is more than in my top 100 -- he is in my top ONE.
-
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.
I haven't bought RS in over 30 years. I don't like what they print either. I remember reading some article about bitching between John/Paul/Yoko, ....I was about 20 years old then. Who and what made that magazine an executive in our lives and our opinions? RS is pure trash.
-
bunwhisper:
It is not necessary to say John was crap in order to boost Paul and Paul does not need that. Paul is about giving people what they want, John did not give a sh!t what anyone thought of him.
Of course John Lennon cared what people thought of him. Why else did he and Yoko spend 10 years carefully crafting their image and cultivating support in the New York/LA media world? Why else did he sit for dozens and dozens of interviews with reporters -- far more than Paul ever did in the 70s? John absolutely cared what people thought of him. He worked hard to shape his reputation. And I never said "John was crap." I was stating an opinion that John's legacy -- politically -- was far less influential, and had far less practical impact in the world, than the media hype would have us believe. Given how much criticism John Lennon dished out, I think he can take a little, too.
-
Michelley:
Of course John Lennon cared what people thought of him. Why else did he and Yoko spend 10 years carefully crafting their image and cultivating support in the New York/LA media world? Why else did he sit for dozens and dozens of interviews with reporters -- far more than Paul ever did in the 70s? John absolutely cared what people thought of him. He worked hard to shape his reputation..
Michelley, if John really cared what people thought as much as you say, he probably never would have broken up the Beatles, and definitely wouldn't have crusaded for this little screaching avante gard artist in the first place. You are so cynical about the effort John made in championing different causes, why? He was vocal about what he believed in, and used his fame to try to turn people onto the same things he believed in. I agree with randy that he did make it a habit of putting himself out there in ways few others did, putting his ass on the line if you will. he did it with Yoko, he did it with his 'mommy issues' as you a bit smugly put it, he did it with the various political causes he fought for.. you act like he just decided to go and get drunk for 18 months for no reason, but the truth is he was sort of forced into that frame of mind by watching Nixon get re-elected and having his peace campaining sort of seemingly fall on deaf ears, having his wife leave him (sure it was his fault but still difficult), his fans were leaving him to some extent, or at least not appreciating his more serious artistic efforts as much as they did his pop efforts, and the government was harrassing him. its not like he just said 'I'm going to the bar' and never came home. The artistic risks that Paul took are miniscule compared to the risks that John took. and while Paul was getting drunk in Scotland, and quietly recording by himself with him playing all the instruments (which isn't really some miraculous a feat), John was turning his focus to performance art in a whole new arena for him. trying to use his platform for good. what did Paul use his platform for, to play small college gigs? and while Paul was playing big rock shows again, John was raising his new family. which is more noble? who cares.. my point is the whole script can be twisted to fit whatever narritive anyone wants.. but I think it's really a shame people view Lennon as such a phoney. he was the total opposite IMO. and it totally misses the point. he didn't carefully sculpt his image througout the 70's, he said whatever was on the tip of his tongue to a fault. and I think if you added them all up, the number of interviews John and Paul gave from 1970 - 1975 were probably about equal. People just remember John for about 3 that he gave cause he was so candid. anyway
-
kapoo:
Michelley:
Of course John Lennon cared what people thought of him. Why else did he and Yoko spend 10 years carefully crafting their image and cultivating support in the New York/LA media world? Why else did he sit for dozens and dozens of interviews with reporters -- far more than Paul ever did in the 70s? John absolutely cared what people thought of him. He worked hard to shape his reputation..
Michelley, if John really cared what people thought as much as you say, he probably never would have broken up the Beatles, and definitely wouldn't have crusaded for this little screaching avante gard artist in the first place. You are so cynical about the effort John made in championing different causes, why? He was vocal about what he believed in, and used his fame to try to turn people onto the same things he believed in. I agree with randy that he did make it a habit of putting himself out there in ways few others did, putting his ass on the line if you will. he did it with Yoko, he did it with his 'mommy issues' as you a bit smugly put it, he did it with the various political causes he fought for.. you act like he just decided to go and get drunk for 18 months for no reason, but the truth is he was sort of forced into that frame of mind by watching Nixon get re-elected and having his peace campaining sort of seemingly fall on deaf ears, having his wife leave him (sure it was his fault but still difficult), his fans were leaving him to some extent, or at least not appreciating his more serious artistic efforts as much as they did his pop efforts, and the government was harrassing him. its not like he just said 'I'm going to the bar' and never came home. The artistic risks that Paul took are miniscule compared to the risks that John took. and while Paul was getting drunk in Scotland, and quietly recording by himself with him playing all the instruments (which isn't really some miraculous a feat), John was turning his focus to performance art in a whole new arena for him. trying to use his platform for good. what did Paul use his platform for, to play small college gigs? and while Paul was playing big rock shows again, John was raising his new family. which is more noble? who cares.. my point is the whole script can be twisted to fit whatever narritive anyone wants.. but I think it's really a shame people view Lennon as such a phoney. he was the total opposite IMO. and it totally misses the point. he didn't carefully sculpt his image througout the 70's, he said whatever was on the tip of his tongue to a fault. and I think if you added them all up, the number of interviews John and Paul gave from 1970 - 1975 were probably about equal. People just remember John for about 3 that he gave cause he was so candid. anyway
Well I was expecting you to roll in here soon to come to John's defense.
You make some good points. And I'm not attacking John, IMO. (The "millionnaire with mommy issues" is not my line; I was describing how some critics now view the album). I don't view him as a phoney. I do think he got in over his head politically and then backed out to reshape his life in the late 70s. My larger point, as I've said, is that the actual practical impact of John's political endeavors has been overblown by the media. In my view, the "risks" he was taking in 69-73 were risks that lots of artists were taking in that time period and the press was rewarding them for it. Political activism was "in." Paul's quest at that time for love, partnership, stability, and family was "out." So, yes, John was taking a risk with his Beatles fans -- risking his popularity and record sales. But Paul was taking a risk with the critics -- pursuing music and life issues that were important to him and to most people but not viewed as "cool" by the people who set the cultural zeitgeist at the time. He was ridiculed for valuing his family by the same media elite that praised John's activism. So I don't see how you can say Paul wasn't taking risks. They were just a different set of risks. In the late 70s, John took the same risk Paul already had by focusing on his family life. Because at that time, plenty of media types were disappointed with John for disappearing from "the scene." And they were disappointed when he came back with Double Fantasy, as it was an album of "silly love songs," (as some article I read recently called it) rather than an edgy political album. So if we argue that John took a risk by pursuing the home life, then it's fair to say it was a risk (reputation wise) when Paul did that first. And sorry but I can't agree with you on Paul's solo debut. Paul's "quietly recording himself playing all the instruments" IS difficult. After all, John Lennon couldn't do it. But this is all just my opinion, after all. We live in a world that continues to canonize John and underrate Paul. So ...
-
bunwhisper:
And Eric Clapton, probably THE greatest guitarist ever (though I prefer George
did not crack the top 50! I think that says it all.
Clapton is there. Not going to dig up the list again to see exactly where, but he's there. Not only that, his contributions vaulted both Cream and the Yardbirds onto the list, so even though very few people make the list twice (Is Lennon the only one?) he is the only one to make it three times.
-
cfergoid:
beatlesfanrandy:
It's not about being a singer. They have a singer poll too. RS has polls for everything.
I'm talking about their best singer list, they put John ahead which is just laughable.
whoops, I would have pointed this out too, except that I thought BFR knew that and was still making the point that it's not just about the talent in the vocal chords, but the words that come out of them and their social/cultural impact.
-
Michelley:
Of course John Lennon cared what people thought of him. Why else did he and Yoko spend 10 years carefully crafting their image and cultivating support in the New York/LA media world? Why else did he sit for dozens and dozens of interviews with reporters -- far more than Paul ever did in the 70s? John absolutely cared what people thought of him. He worked hard to shape his reputation. And I never said "John was crap." I was stating an opinion that John's legacy -- politically -- was far less influential, and had far less practical impact in the world, than the media hype would have us believe. Given how much criticism John Lennon dished out, I think he can take a little, too.
I think John was very honest and he *did* lay it on the line--starting with the Two Virgins album--or even the ever-popular Beatles are bigger than Jesus comment. He knew that he could lose fans and didn't really care. It was more important to him to make whatever statement he wanted to make to the world. I think John took many risks as an artist and supported some unpopular causes (John Sinclair etc). It is one of the things I love most about John, his honesty. It is a double edged sword obviously, as it was also devastating (How Do You Sleep?). But there is no doubt that he has had a lasting political legacy--one of the earliest rock stars to become politically involved and set the example for others. Without "Give Peace a Chance" would we have had "Ohio" or "Feed The World"? John made *me* think more deeply about peace (even though I was only in junior high when he "retired"). It is a message that has affected the way I live my life, my political views. How can you even estimate how many people have been influenced by his message? That does NOT take away from Paul's involvement in various things, but for Paul, it came later. As was pointed out, he was into establishing a family and a new band when John was most politically active. But Paul became more so in the 90's and onward. His support of animal rights and vegetarianism has been influential, at least to his fans. Paul is just a different guy when it comes to political activism. He is more about teaching people why, not so in your face as John was. But both ways have their place. And I for one miss music that actually meant something. So tired of all this dumb crap we hear today. I guess there was always some dumb stuff, but there isnt much that counteracts the vapidity on the airwaves today.
-
Hoodatnva, I couldn't disagree with you more, I think McCartney has released plenty of songs that have snap and are eyebrow raising poppers! I also don't think McCartney's individual material has been mediocre, sure not every single song is Earth shattering, but there is way way way more good than bad!
-
So once again... If it's documented and you're acknowledged as the greatest songwriter IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF POPULAR MUSIC, if you've been nominated as the greatest singer songwriter OF THE MILLENIUM not once but twice, if you wrote THE BIGGEST HIT THE BEATLES EVER HAD, if you wrote THE MOST COVERED SONG IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF POPULAR MUSIC, who could possibly be higher than that? Right now today McCartney is acknowledged as the most famous most successful rock star on planet Earth! So once again, who and how can anyone be higher than that?
-
Michelley:
kapoo:
Michelley:
Of course John Lennon cared what people thought of him. Why else did he and Yoko spend 10 years carefully crafting their image and cultivating support in the New York/LA media world? Why else did he sit for dozens and dozens of interviews with reporters -- far more than Paul ever did in the 70s? John absolutely cared what people thought of him. He worked hard to shape his reputation..
Michelley, if John really cared what people thought as much as you say, he probably never would have broken up the Beatles, and definitely wouldn't have crusaded for this little screaching avante gard artist in the first place. You are so cynical about the effort John made in championing different causes, why? He was vocal about what he believed in, and used his fame to try to turn people onto the same things he believed in. I agree with randy that he did make it a habit of putting himself out there in ways few others did, putting his ass on the line if you will. he did it with Yoko, he did it with his 'mommy issues' as you a bit smugly put it, he did it with the various political causes he fought for.. you act like he just decided to go and get drunk for 18 months for no reason, but the truth is he was sort of forced into that frame of mind by watching Nixon get re-elected and having his peace campaining sort of seemingly fall on deaf ears, having his wife leave him (sure it was his fault but still difficult), his fans were leaving him to some extent, or at least not appreciating his more serious artistic efforts as much as they did his pop efforts, and the government was harrassing him. its not like he just said 'I'm going to the bar' and never came home. The artistic risks that Paul took are miniscule compared to the risks that John took. and while Paul was getting drunk in Scotland, and quietly recording by himself with him playing all the instruments (which isn't really some miraculous a feat), John was turning his focus to performance art in a whole new arena for him. trying to use his platform for good. what did Paul use his platform for, to play small college gigs? and while Paul was playing big rock shows again, John was raising his new family. which is more noble? who cares.. my point is the whole script can be twisted to fit whatever narritive anyone wants.. but I think it's really a shame people view Lennon as such a phoney. he was the total opposite IMO. and it totally misses the point. he didn't carefully sculpt his image througout the 70's, he said whatever was on the tip of his tongue to a fault. and I think if you added them all up, the number of interviews John and Paul gave from 1970 - 1975 were probably about equal. People just remember John for about 3 that he gave cause he was so candid. anyway
Well I was expecting you to roll in here soon to come to John's defense.
You make some good points. And I'm not attacking John, IMO. (The "millionnaire with mommy issues" is not my line; I was describing how some critics now view the album). I don't view him as a phoney. I do think he got in over his head politically and then backed out to reshape his life in the late 70s. My larger point, as I've said, is that the actual practical impact of John's political endeavors has been overblown by the media. In my view, the "risks" he was taking in 69-73 were risks that lots of artists were taking in that time period and the press was rewarding them for it. Political activism was "in." Paul's quest at that time for love, partnership, stability, and family was "out." So, yes, John was taking a risk with his Beatles fans -- risking his popularity and record sales. But Paul was taking a risk with the critics -- pursuing music and life issues that were important to him and to most people but not viewed as "cool" by the people who set the cultural zeitgeist at the time. He was ridiculed for valuing his family by the same media elite that praised John's activism. So I don't see how you can say Paul wasn't taking risks. They were just a different set of risks. In the late 70s, John took the same risk Paul already had by focusing on his family life. Because at that time, plenty of media types were disappointed with John for disappearing from "the scene." And they were disappointed when he came back with Double Fantasy, as it was an album of "silly love songs," (as some article I read recently called it) rather than an edgy political album. So if we argue that John took a risk by pursuing the home life, then it's fair to say it was a risk (reputation wise) when Paul did that first. And sorry but I can't agree with you on Paul's solo debut. Paul's "quietly recording himself playing all the instruments" IS difficult. After all, John Lennon couldn't do it. But this is all just my opinion, after all. We live in a world that continues to canonize John and underrate Paul. So ...
Well the whole ?millionaire with mommy issues? blast is just annoying. Give the man a break, his honesty is commendable and can only help others who may have gone through the same thing deal with their own feelings of loss or abandonment and whatever it is they might be going through. If nothing else it stands as a commendable work of art that came from the heart. Anyone who criticized it is being a dumbass. IMO. As far as the impact of John?s work for peace, I think it has had a much greater impact than Paul?s support of vegetarianism, or his support for animal rights, or raising awareness of landmines. John left us with several songs which summarize an ideology of peace among men and women, done so in songs that will be played for generations to come. These are talking points and things to think about that relate to how humans should treat each other. I think that is much more valuable than talking about how we should alter our diet, or the treatment of animals. To me certain animals will always be food for humans, and I see no problem with that really. Food chains exist in nature. People can choose more humane ways to produce that food, but the choice we have to be peaceful with other human beings, particularly in the nuclear age we live in, seems to be more relevant than ever. War Is Over If You Want It. Give Peace A Chance. All You Need Is Love. High visibility slogans that will endure because they absolutely should. I can totally relate to Paul and his strong family values, and I admire and respect that. John I think had strong family values, but his story is a bit contradictory. He put so much focus on his ?new? family with Sean and Yoko, yet treated Julian and Cynthia so poorly for so long. I am one who thinks that had John lived he would have mended those fences, cause I think at his core he was a good person. I just think he was troubled and didn?t always know how to act when it came to personal life stuff. It's the ugly side of John surfacing there, and its a real shame it went down like it did. On the other side though, if you really think about it, how bad did Julian and Cynthia really have it? set for life financially, with a distant and abusive father and husband. I can relate to the bad side of that equationo and I didn't live in a mansion with loads of money.. and there's no way they didn't have lots of money, regardless of what they may have said. probably should have had more but I find it hard to believe they ever wanted for any material things. As far as Paul?s talent as a musician, he was pretty damn good playing and producing everything on his own. As the years go on I think the most impressive accomplishment (besides the writing) was navigating the antiquated technology he had to work to produce such finished sounding and quality work. Getting the levels right in the mix, all the overdubs, editing and producing all his one-man-band music. The production and engineering work on McCartney, though it appears to be simple, is actually what?s most impressive to me. Cause I?ve tried my hand at the engineering and production side of things with vastly greater technology at my disposal, and I can?t even come close? So I will give you that, I undersold that in my post before, it is impressive. And his playing is always great. I said Paul should be in the top 20 in the RS list before and I would say thats being conservative, probably Top 10.
-
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.
True RS always biased they are John/Rolling Stones/Bob Dylan die hard fans since Ram, 90% of what Paul suffered critically as a musician was by the way they wrote on him. their lists?? always John/Rolling Stones/Bob Dylan while trying their best to minimize Paul the legend.
-
Alright, having read the arguments and considered his legacy, I'm going to go on record with this: With his Beatles career off-limits for consideration (the band is already recognized as #1), Paul should be approximately 15th on this list. By the way, I just noticed something else... how on earth are the Shirelles ahead of the Supremes? What possible justification can there be for this? This would be like Paula Abdul being ahead of Madonna, almost.
-
peace campaigns, bed with Yoko and vegetarian issues has nothing to do with someone's music value... only the music work is the judge. the year 1971 was the only year John was considered (as solo) better than Paul ... simply cause Paul's Ram was not recognized as a master piece till the the late 90's , but at that year also George was more successful and in the public eye than both. Afterwards, and during the whole 70's, everyone knows that Paul was the most successful Beatle and one of the top music figures till the day John was taken from this world. RS is just a biased crap look at their list of best guitarist and see how names like Keith Richard at the top while MANY great guitarist of all time miss the list!!and you can see John Lennon there also...really funny!
-
Ammar:
RS is just a biased crap look at their list of best guitarist and see how names like Keith Richard at the top while MANY great guitarist of all time miss the list!!and you can see John Lennon there also...really funny!
I hae no problem with Keef at or very near the top... I know that some really prominent names were left out though. And a lot of times, guys who were guitarists for prominent bands were excluded, despite not personally being known as prominent guitarists (IMO) were included.
-
Kapoo, I love ya, but I have to disagree with one thing: Julian & Cynthia were not "set for life" and living in mansions. John gave Cyn 100,000 GBP in the divorce! How long do you think that lasted? No wonder she married that Roberto Bassinini--for the money! Have you read her books?
-
However, Paul got a gracious review from RS: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/paul-mccartney-launches-another-magical-mystery-tour-20121112
-
KingMacca:
However, Paul got a gracious review from RS: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/paul-mccartney-launches-another-magical-mystery-tour-20121112
That's the one bone they've always thrown Paul's way: They criticize his songwriting and undervalue his albums but praise his live performance, as if that's the only thing he's been great at since the Beatles.
:
: