The Cute One

[NardDog]

I would just like to say that there a lot of people who like to think and say Paul McCartney was far inferior to John, George and Ringo...I'm not one of those people. Although, John's and George's songs solo or otherwise might be more deep or poignant I still listen to Wings/McCartney more than any other post-Beatles stuff...and why? Because Paul's songs are masterfully crafted and much more diverse sonically than the other post-Beatle offerings...and he can occasionally say/sing something profound(let me remind you that Paul wrote Eleanor Rigby and Let It Be among other great Beatle songs).However, some people love to hate on Paul. So what are your opinions of Sir Paul? I would venture to guess that most people who say they dislike Paul have probably never listened to a full McCartney album...particularly Ram or Band On The Run.


...but enough of what I think...let the bloodbath begin...or help me defend Paul because he gets a bad rap from most people...

[robinbobbin]

You know, a friend of mine once described Paul as more of a composer (compared to the other three), which I think makes sense. I sort of view his music as maybe not being as emotional as John, but maybe more technically good? Cause yeah, Band on the Run, for instance, is good stuff. Good pop, you know.
Does anyone really say he's inferior to Ringo though? No offense, but come on...nah, honestly, I think they're all good, in their own way. It's just a matter of preference..

(But I WILL say that in the cute department, George>Paul)

[NardDog]

believe it or not I've heard some say that...but the general consensus is John>George>Paul>Ringo at least

...I was just saying the cute thing because of him being referred to as such...which kind of negates his artistry(more than a pretty face) Ultimately though, you're right all four were fab in their own way

[Trumpy's Magic Snout]

personally many of my favourite Beatles songs are by Paul. Really don't like his post-Beatles stuff though.

George was probably the best post-Beatles.

[Mighty Jack]

John was my man and I think he made the most consistent post Beatle albums (Plastic Ono Band, Imagine, Walls and Bridges all made my top 200 list. Shaved Fish is great and I like most of Mind Games (Meat City is genius) -but he could have used Paul for the bridges- Double Fantasy, sans most of Yoko's stuff and while it suffers from his worst, simplistic preachy lyrics, Sometime in NY does have some nice melodies)

I can't imagine anyone ranking George ahead of Paul as a songwriter, he had some commercial success with the Wilbury's and Cloud Nine. All Things Must Pass had some good material but most of his solo work was a mess. 33 and a 3rd had 2 good songs, Extra Texture was horrid. Dark Horse very weak.

Sure Paul had "Bip Bop", but George wrote "Ding, Dong, Ding Dong" fer Christmas sake! George had some very spiritual messages and maybe that's why he gets a better rap, Paul is seen as writing silly love songs. George's song "All Things Must Pass" (especially the acoustic version) is brillaint... but structurally some of his lyrics were poorly phrased and downright silly.

Paul writes the best bridges and bridge transitions. Structurally he's a wizard at chord progression and composition. As a Beatles he was a staunch perfectionist, who would work tirelessly on his own songs. Strangely as a solo artists he got sloppy. Maybe it was the stress of doing a full album of numbers, as a Beatle he didn't have the burden of creating 12 tracks and could focus on his 4 numbers and the ones he wrote with others (primarily John).

A lot of his albums have about 4 good to great songs on them. Flaming Pie for example, 4 great tunes, the rest are filler. Venus and Mars, starts off solid then falls apart. Even Band on the Run and Ram have tracks where you just go, "Why, Paul, why? That's just stupid and your talented enough to know it!" (Picasso is throw away, put there on a dare from Anthony Hopkins --- please don't take dares when your working on a masterpiece. Just do solid work)

He needs to be pushed but he needs to be pushed by a great musical mind. Like Lennon, like Martin, like the guy who produced his wonderful "Chaos and Creation in the Backyard". Denny Lane was a poor substitute for John.

He can write brilliant lyrics still, when he wants to. He's so damned talented that I think he forgets that it takes work to write a line. I think that might be because he'd get lucky sometimes during his Beatles days and write a throw away filler line that would work (The shoulder's line in Jude that John encouraged him to keep).

I think the trivial, filler stuff has tarnished his reputation. He struggles to put together consistent albums. All that body of work and there are only 3 LPs I can listen to with few track skips (Band, Ram and Chaos), that's bad odds. And it's sad that this has overshadowed some remarkable solo work (Live and Let Die, like major wow

With Paul I could put together a compilation (which would be better than Wingspan) and it would be one of my favorite albums of all time. But I'd have to wade through a lot of dreck and pull out a lot of weeds (Kreen-Akore? Really, Paul, really you wanna go with that?.

[NardDog]

Tony I hear what you're saying and agree with most of it especially with stuff like Kreen-Akore but I think Band On The Run is a masterpiece Picasso's Last Words although lyrically a little awkward is amazing musically but then again if there is one song on that album that stands out for being not perfect it is that one. Venus And Mars is a solid album besides the last couple of songs there is none of it I would skip so on one hand it does fall apart like you say, but, it isn't until track 12-13 out of 16. Ram to me is his best because besides Eat At Home it's flawless.

I'd agree with you that his best three are probably Band, Ram, and Chaos...but Pipes Of Peace, Tug Of War, At The Speed Of Sound, McCartney, the aforementioned Venus And Mars among others are solid albums. Since Pipes the only great album he has released is Chaos...a lot of that 80s stuff is pretty bad, the 90s albums were sketchy as well but then again Beautiful Night is one of the best songs he's ever written so it's not like he has completely lost it...


...but Lennon for me on the other hand after Imagine(which was 1971 for those of you keeping score) never released a consistent album. I mean Double Fantasy was a nice half album but unfortunately you have to judge it as a whole album...but Mind Games, Walls And Bridges, Sometime In NYC all suffer from the same sketchy pitfalls that we have talked about with some of Paul's solo work. George...well All Things Must Pass was his moment in the sun but ultimately an anachronism when compared to the rest of his albums...Living In The Material World was decent but not on par with the good offerings from John or Paul....I guess my point is Paul has been the most consistent....we can only imagine(please don't connect the horrible pun) what John would have done after Double Fantasy...because he sure seemed to be back in top form but we all know what happened...tragedy doesn't even describe it

[Mighty Jack]

It all comes down to personal taste, I'd take Walls and Bridges and Mind Games over Tug Of War (okay) Pipes of Peace (after So Bad it falls apart) and especially At The Speed Of Sound (Ga, Kill me now!). For me there are a handful of good numbers on all those albums, but a lot of very weak tracks that I can't sit through (Ballroom Dancing -UGH!).

McCartney, the LP not the man, wasn't too bad and it gave us "Maybe I'm Amazed".

I tried to listen to Venus and Mars about a month ago, it was painful to hear how poorly it has aged for me.

Flowers in the Dirt has some good numbers.

Of course, all that is just my humble opinion

[Shep]

Macca gets slagged because he's wildly inconsistent. I don't like all of Lennon's or Harrison's solo work either, but imo songs like "Instant Karma," "Jealous Guy," "What Is Life?" are better than anything Paul has done.

Like Paul's "Maybe I'm Amazed" though. That was good enough for a Beatles album.