70''s material overrated??? I can't believe what I'm reading. There's a damn good reason that Paul was the 2nd most successful solo act of the decade behind only Elton John. Being overplayed doesn't diminish how great the material is. Song for song BOTR is a melodic masterpiece and nothing Paul did post 80s can even compare.
Except Paul was getting lots of airplay largely because of the massive amount of good will left over from his Beatle days. The quality of the material may have been somewhat of a factor....but not the driving force. Had he come out of nowhere with his first two or three albums, he would have sunk. Being a Beatle carried him for years.
I know, Nancy, when I read tI busted out laughing his, that "being a Beatle (Paul) carried him for years"--although Beatles 4Ever has a right to their opinion, and I respect that. It's just that it's so obvious McCartney is a musical prodigy, one of the extreme examples of an uber-talented musician, and not being a Beatle anymore could not and did not change that. I can visualize "Egypt Station" winning Album of the Year at the Grammys, and Kanye West had better not charge up to the stage and snatch it away from him ! (LOL)
So happy that my commentary was so amusing to you that you "busted out laughing." Paul's first album would never have seen the light of day...even with "Maybe I'm Amazed"... were he not Paul the Beatle. HIs second, "Wild Life," had he found a company that would have released it, would have sunk. For the most part that album is an embarrassment. "Mary Had a Little Lamb," had any company relased it, would only have made Paul a total joke. Actually, no one would have heard it, so the joke would not have been on him. Had he not been who he was and had not accomplished so much with the Beatles, he would never have gotten off the ground (no pun intended) with that early largely mediocre output. Laugh all you want. Doesn't matter to me. Everyone in the world knows Paul would never have been had the opportunity to get around to "Band On The Run" were he not who he was.....Beatle Paul, which...like it or not.... got him airplay for years. Our opinions differ....wildly...no doubt about it. I love Paul to pieces and know he has great abilities. I seriously doubt any of that would have gotten him all that far with the shaky start he had....were he not who he was.
Your thinking is flawed. "Paul's first album would never have seen the light of day....were he not Paul the Beatle." Let's assume McCartney was never a member of the Beatles and in 1970 he was a new artist. He would have had a backlog of material he'd written such as Let it be, Long and Winding Road, Oh Darling, Lady Madonna, Yesterday, Maybe I'm Amazed, Every Night.....etc. Those songs would have been on his debut album and he'd have been a major 70s star and he'd have had plenty of material to bridge the gap from 1970 to 1973. The point is, a new artist wouldn't have the luxury of presenting a DIY home recording as a debut so that wouldn't have happened. Just like an unknown John Lennon would never have been able to spring the dreadful Two Virgins on the public. McCartney brought a backlog of material to the Beatles, and he'd have brought a backlog of material to his career as a new artist in 1970.