Paul McCartney greatest flaw as an artist ?

It pains me to tell you this, but now you're being delusional! I was there, I've been having my McCartney parties for years, all kinds of people in attendance many of them musicians! No one was smiling with their lips closed! If they didn't like something they would say so and vice versa!

It's you who has a McCartney complex!

 

And that's not counting all the songs they gave away, during those years.

 

The critical drubbing of Ram has got to be one of the biggest lies in the history of rock. It’s the thorn in our flesh of Paul fans and probably Paul himself, no, not the apostle, McCartney, because it is so undeserved, and yet it cannot be taken away.

 

I like you maccafan....sending you a big hug.....we're on the same side of the McCartney fence here. You love him for what he created, I love him enough to be upset at what he wasted, but in the end it's the same passion. I promise not to jump a waterfall while chasing a polar bear and showering every hour on a flower if you do.

Let me ask you a question: Were these nude McCartney parties?

 

It seems some think that McCartney's Wings/solo material contains more bad than good.

Well I'm not of that camp and never have been! I think that the vast majority of this material is good to fantastic! Now notice I said the vast majority, so obviously that means not all of it. The only albums where I think differently are McCartney II and The Fireman.

Paul McCartney since the Beatles has produced way way more good music than bad!

 

I'm not the kind of guy who plays around on forums, when people start what I think is snide remarks and silliness, I no longer participate!

 

Well...I believe Lennon, based on his song by song breakdowns, in the "Playboy" interviews, prior to his death. But yeah...let's just ignore facts, because it doesn't fit your narrative, and because you"believe it in your heart", as if that's worth anything.

 

I was making a peace offering. Like a pickle that is sour, like a cellphone needs a tower.

 

"Wings - the band that the Beatles could have been!"

 

Getting back to what I think is a McCartney flaw, as I posted earlier, it's his live performance setlist since the 80s!

Now the Beatle heavy setlist was cool for maybe two tours, but after that he just kept it Beatle heavy tour after tour after tour, and he still does?
C'mon, one or two tours could have been dedicated more to his Wings/solo material? No one has ever said don't play any Beatles, but he certainly could have performed more Wings/solo material than he has.

 

did Yoda write #6?

 

Yes, this is why I don't ever want to see him live. If he was still living in the present, songwise/art wise, I would be more interested but I can't help but think it's just a tribute show to the Beatles with his long time lackeys by his side pumping it out.

 

I shouldn't be so surprised at how jaded people can be, but I am.

 

IMO part of the problem is right in the thread title, Paul as artist. Paul was never some tortured soul seeking peace. Without John, there was no one to balance Paul's natural sentimentality.

 

I have a feeling he was exactly that, a tortured soul seeking peace, when The Beatles were breaking apart and he didn't know how to proceed forward. Not that I think that's the definition of an artist. But, by your definition, he was an artist from at least 1969 and maybe earlier.

 

No Magneto or Rock Show? Letting Go? How do you make a mix for kids and ignore Venus and Mars?

And are you calling Say Say Say, Ebony and Ivory, and No More Lonely Nights "early Paul"?

Kind of a perplexing post, to be honest.

 

No flaws.

 

SIDE A

Band On The Run
Too Many People
Maybe I’m Amazed
Jet
Let Me Roll It
Hi Hi Hi
Live and Let Die

SIDE B

Venus and Mars
Rock Show
Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey
Every Night
Junior’s Farm
My Love
Nineteen Hundred and Eighty Five

 

That's a very narrow and misguided definition of art. Art can be joyful. It doesn't have to be "tortured."

John probably needed Paul more than the other way around, as was proved by his sparse and spotty solo output.

 

On the other hand, Paul released too much music. He needed John to tell him when his material wasn’t up to snuff.

 

spotty could equally describe Pauls output for the period that John was active, from 1975-80 John then took a break for reasons we all know. but for the period he was active his output was not sparse.

After 1980 he was dead so his output was indeed sparse after that but that was not John's fault.

For the period they were both active 70-75 they were about as prolific - and spotty - as each other.

 

Why was he not able to do the same with his own work and Yoko's?

And people seem to forget that John was not a fan of much of Paul's work in the later years of the Beatles and he had no power in stopping it being released. If John had his way the medley of Abbey Road would never have been released.

 

indeed he did and equally Macca needed John to curb his more twee and mawkish tendencies, together - and even when even not writing together - they were greater than the sum of their parts, in short they desperately needed each other.

 

Really...so losing his mother at such an early age did not produce any torture or angst. I'm curious how you are such an authority on the relationship between he and has mother.
Yeah...unlike Lennon, he didn't exploit the death of his mother, well into his thirties. Lennon's angst appeared to be disingenuous and manufactured.

 

exactly John needed Paul to stop his excessess too and they were enough counterweight to each other so that Paul could have enough to get the medley through but would probably never have dared brought half the stuff from his solo career to the table if John had been there.