Paul McCartney greatest flaw as an artist ?

I have taken it upon myself to create some great McCartney albums by combining certain albums released next to each other and using the best tracks plus non-album singles. Tug of War/Pipes of Peace, London Town/Back to the Egg, Venus and Mars/Speed of Sound.

When properly sequenced, they make for great listening!

 

His greatest and possibly only flaw was falling out with Lennon

 

Doesn't cuss enough.

 

No. Not his fault.
It was Lennon who fell out with McCartney.

Paul did everything to keep the band together including playing almost all the instruments on a Lennon solo single and releasing it under the Beatles name.

 

He would have been a better bass player had he been right-handed.
Seriously though, I think he's spread out too much. Instead of doing one amazing thing, he's doing twenty okay things. A sign of the times, I guess.

 

Too earnest is my only complaint.

 

His biggest flaw was working with artists who had more to say than he did.

 

8.

 

He has no weaknesses as an artist.

 

I definitely think quality control and a relative lack of a strong collaborator have both hurt him over the years.

 

His skill as lyricist doesn't always measure up to his genius for creating melody and harmony. I'd hardly call it a "flaw" though.

 

I tried to, or intended to offer posters up to 3 choices. Sadly I hit the wrong button & posted the thread-poll before I intended.

I'd agree with the general consensus, quality control & unfocused work, being the main criticisms.

 

Paul is Paul, you know?
Our relationship goes well beyond judging.
Leave the poor guy alone.
He'll be keeping to himself if you lot keep this up.
I had this dream about Paul the other night.
He was wandering the roads, begging for attention, a desperate unloved man.
"Give us some love." he begged me.
"Get away you cheeky monkey," I riposted.
Poor Paul.
And now THIS.

 

"He wasn't even the best bass player in The Beatles." Jon Lemon, 1981

 

A sign of things in rock 'n' roll, perhaps. Composers in the 16th, 17th 18th and 19th century had to do a lot of all of it. It was expected of them to earn that money. It was expected of them in the public eye.

These pop composers have it soft. Sure, they'll live to be 85, but only to contribute a 10th of what Mozart accomplished when he died at the age of 35.

I love popular music. But these guys like Paul are buskers who should never say they are spread too thin.

 

That must have been some good smoke.

 

His biggest problem in my opinion is that he’s not a reliable editor of his own material. He respected John and listened to his opinion, and John knew when and how to challenge him. He never found another collaborator who was on that level.

 

Paul McCartney have been goin on for a loooong time. Just like anyone else he has had both artistic and personal ups and downs. Artistically dare I say mostly for the good. Elvis Costello once said that Pauls greatest strenght was his lack of fear-that he ventured in practically any musical setting without being afraid to do so. A weakness some would say- a strenght others-me included movie. Not that I particulary enjoy say Pauls ventures into classical music but because that s whom he is. An artist with seemingly no limits. That s also why he sometimes obviosly fall flat like his so called movie. But that s also why he still on occasion manages to deliver great stuff and has a curiosity in trying new things. Without the downs there would not be all the ups in Pauls career.
So-being a lifelong admirer of Pauls work I would not want to have him any dufferent than he is and has been-warts and all.
That s why I didn t vote in this poll.

 

IMO his greatest strength is writing and performing excellent melodies and ballads, but he's trying way too hard to be a cool rocker.

 

Lack of quality control, self-editing and a strong/challenging writing partner have all been already mentioned, and I agree with all of that. Voted #2.

 

Why? Is he a sacred cow or something. I, for one, think most of his solo output is pretty mediocre. Would he had not been one of the Fab Four we would have never talked about or remembered him 30 years later.

 

I’m not sure how to answer this, so I didn’t vote. I’m a huge fan, but I certainly agree that he’s made his share of bad records and bad albums. But, I can’t think of an artist of his statue that didn’t have a few clunkers along the way. I certainly don’t see his post 1970 career as any worst than Dylan, or the Stones, or Neil Young - they’ve all had their share of disasters and uneven records. One difference with McCartney is that he has one foot squarely in the pop music camp, which I think turns off some rock oriented listeners and critics. Some of then will never accept a song like “Listen to What the Man Said” as pure pop genius.

Personally, I like his first two solo albums and think “Ram” is a masterpiece. It took awhile for Wings to get going, but what he ended up achieving was quite remarkable - create a new band with a quintessential 70s sound. He took a decade long nose dive beginning in the mid 80, but I thinks he rebounded with “Flaming Pie” and has been on a bit of a roll since. I thoroughly enjoyed “Run Devil Run;” “Creation and Chaos in the Backyard;” “Memory Almost Full;” “Electric Arguments;” and “New”

 

I think his greatest flaw, and it's a similar flaw with Lennon, is that they had to catalogue their personal life in song. You can only go so far with it. Lennon boiled himself dry after the Imagine album, just that martyrdom caused most to reassess him with rose-tinted spectacles. McCartney began writing snippets like Lovely Linda, Eat At Home, etc which showed a fascination with his own situation. It's almost akin to having the Hello! magazine cameras in !

 

True, but he wrote some mediocre and misguided songs during his prime with the Beatles, but like many here have mentioned, he once had a genius collaborator who put the kibosh on the lamer songs or fluffed them up (e.g. "Obla-di-obla-da"). However, back then his compositions were only responsible for 40% of an album whereas his solo years (especially the diminishing returns of the '80s and beyond) he had to account for 100% of the songs. Post-Beatles Lennon suffered from the same lack of a collaborator (and spared the ignominy of '80s productions).

This is my only other real issue with McCartney. In the years since the Beatles, the man tries way too hard to claim his greatness, that he's cool, etc. He doesn't have to utter another word. He was in the freaking Beatles, man. Yet he's probably been unsettled by the idea that he's forever doing battle with the ghost of St. John Lennon. That's a battle you cannot win.

 

Silly, negative thread.
McCartney has been a public artist for 56 years. Sometimes he's great, sometimes not. Why is that a flaw?