Happy 70th, Paul! Thanks for entertaining me in many ways for almost 50 years.
Ditto. I feel exactly the same way. Seems like he's been a part of my life forever...
Yeah, 40 of those 50 years spent rehashing old Beatles music!
& what have you done lately? On its face that's an unfair statement. I haven't been a big fan since the early 70's BUT whether you like it or not - & mostly I don't - he has released an enormously successful catalog of music since the Beatles.
To imply that he's simply a hack rehashing his salad days is a very uninformed view.
Your really off base... Now I'm a Lennon man myself., BUT without Paul there would not have been the albums between Sgt. Pepper's & Abbey Road. Lennon was smacked out from 67 to 69. Unlikes say Keith, Dr. John or Ray Charles he was not functional on smack. Paul was the ENGINE behind the Beatles. He came up with the projects & made sure thy were carried through.
Without him there is NO Beatles as we remember them. George was considered the jr. member & had no real input. Ringo is a drummer. & John was simply to fucked up to do much of anything but go in & out of addiction & contribute a few songs. He was even arrested in '68. Neither one of them ever reached the heights they had together as that kind of symbiotic musical chemistry simply does not happen often. Mick & Keith being another rare example.
You also slag Paul unfairly about his enduring post-Beatle career. Granted his music on his own for the most part was NOT my cup of tea. But just because you don't like something doses not mean it's bad. I listen to music two ways 1- Do I like it? 2- Is their real musicianship, vocals & artistic deftness & skill? & in Paul's case you have to just be so prejudiced by your likes & dislikes that you can't see one of the great, enduring musicians of the late 20th early 21st centuries.
Just because one doesn't like something don't be so close minded that you can't appreciate it for what it is. For instance, I've never liked Zep except for 2-3 songs. They pretty much did nothing for me, BUT it's obvious that they were tremendous at their particular genre & were really great at it. I just never got into it but I'm open mind enough to appreciate what they did & their place in musical history.
I don't just dismiss them as crap because I don't personally like their music. As in Paul's case, untold millions would absolutely disagree...
Music is very personal, good on you that you rate him. I don't. And, Lennon was the engine and inspiration and driving force of the Beatles. When he slacked off that was the end of them.
While the Beatles and The Stones (in part) were a bit before my time, I used to have a mate who loved the Stones and I would rib him that the Beatles were the far greater band. Of course he would suggest that if the Beatles were so great, why weren't they still around. Mick and the boys were better because they were still rocking it through to the late seventies (when we discusssed this).
I would then retaliate with the proposition that many of the Beatles songs were of an everlasting quality and even at that stage a number of their songs had already been covered by numerous artists. Of course we didn't know everything there was to know about either band and one day my mate came up to me and said that he had just "discovered" the song REVOLUTION and was blown away by it - he said he didn't realise that the Beatles could do that.
As to McCartney's post Beatles career - what's up with Wings? I thought they were pretty good and it didn't sound like a Beatles re-hash to me unless your persecuting McCartney for sounding like, well, McCartney in his vocals.
It seems that some musical composers are like fighters - they definitely peak at some point and then there is downturn to their creativity capacities, their greatest offerings never to be re-captured. And that's on an individual basis. With Lennon and McCartney you had a collaboration of two of the greats at the absolute height of their powers paying perfect complement to each other, in simple terms Paul's whimsy combined with John's hard edge - resulting in works far greater than the sum of John and Paul's invidivual parts, imo.
As Ringo admitted in that new Martin Scorsese documentary on George Harrison, if it wasn't for Paul's work ethic, there would have been a lot less Beatles music. Ringo said he and John would be watching TV when they'd get a phone call and say to each other, (I'm paraphrasing): "Oh, it's probably Paul calling us to come to the studio."
Walsh, like I said your uniformed & very close minded on this. Do some research, as I & Box have pointed out it's a matter of record that from 67 to 69 John was strung out on smack & useless as a motivator. Paul drove the Beatles to complete all their projects from St. Pepper's thru Abbey Road. Just because you refuse to see the obvious does not make your view factual...
& remember, this is coming from someone who is a far bigger fan of Lennon than Paul's. The reality is facts are facts no matter what your "feelings" are.
Paul McCartney: Best Of The Solo Years
His Secret Autobiography In Song:
10 Things You Didn't Know About The Beatles Music
100 Greatest Beatle Songs: Introduction By Elvis Costello
John was my man but I really dug Paul as a Beatle. Liked a little of the early Wings stuff but he lost me around the duet with Michael Jackson, "Ebony and Ivory". His songs got less compelling and even wimpy. I mean this is the guy that wrote "Hey Jude, "Let It Be", " "Yesterday" and a slew of songs that will endure as long as there is popular music.
Granted, not so much lately. Anyway haven't bought one of his records in decades but it doesn't matter he's still a BEATLE and unless you were there, you simply don't understand. Any I respect him though I'm not a fan of his 80s to now music. Anyway, dug all the links, brought back lotsa memories. As to the discussion at the beginning, I agree with Gor and Box. It is a matter of record that it was Paul who kept them together and was the engine the last half of their careers.
Just listen to the "White Album", they gave George more space than usual and Paul dominated the record. John contributed some tunes that were great like "Happiness Is A Warm Gun" and "I'm so Tired", real junkie songs. Great, but hardly typical Lennon It was the junk talking and as was mentioned he was arrested for it during the recording in 1968.
Anyway, John's my man but Paul's pushing was needed. Hell, without him he retired for five years and baked bread and watched TV and he wasn't even on junk then.
Prior to the "Flowers in the Dirt" tour of 1989, McCartney almost never played any Beatles tunes anywhere, in concert or otherwise. He'd usually throw one or two in on his big tours (eg. I've Just Seen a Face during Wings Over America), and he threw in a bunch of covers for his horrendous movie "Give my Regards to Broad Street", but he stood almost entirely on his own for 2 decades after the death of the Beatles. If never playing it is "rehashing", I guess he was rehashing. Otherwise, not even close.
His first 20 years as a solo artist were hit and miss for me. I love the Band on the Run and Tug of War albums (except for Ebony and Ivory), but virtually every other album has a great couple of tracks surrounded by tremendously self indulgent crap. Some favorites:
McCartney: "That Would be Something", "Junk", "Every Night"
Ram: "Another Day"
Red Rose Speedway: "Big Barn Red", "My Carnival"
Band on the Run: every single track is a classic
Venus and Mars: "RockShow", "Letting Go"
Speed of Sound: "Beware my Love"
London Town: "I've Had Enough", "With a Little Lick"
Back to the Egg: "Rockestra", "Arrow Through Me"
Tug of War: everything except Ebony and Ivory, and I'm not that wild about "Dress me up as a Robber"
Broad Street: "Not Such a Bad Boy"
Press to Play: "Move Over Busker"
Flowers in the Dirt: "This One", "Put it There"
Off the Ground: "Hope of Deliverance", "C'Mon People"
*** C'Mon People is my favorite McCartney song ever, Beatles or solo.
Add in a bunch of tunes that weren't even album tracks, like Junior's Barn, Helen Wheels and Mull of Kintyre, and you have a tremendous career, even totally discounting the Beatles. Whether you like his music or not (and I love half and hate half), denying the man's greatness as an artist and as a singwriter is pretty shortsighted.