Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by johnny moondog 909, Mar 11, 2018.
You've got a lot of reasons why I LIKE him up there!
Paul McCartney is easily my favourite music artist ever but the idea that he has no flaws is nuts. To me, his biggest weakness is often one of his greatest strengths. He has such an innate musical sense that he can come up with timeless melodies almost without thought but unfortunately, the flipside to that is that he often half-asses a lot of his work. Sometimes even then it works out well (see: his debut) but a lot of time it feels that another run through or two would do some of his songs and albums the world of good. I should say, though, that this is especially true of his lyrics, which are often insanely slap-dash and lazy but very occasionally also leaks onto his music. This is why, incidentally, collaborations are often so good for him.
Of course, all this said, his best album is probably Ram and that album is ALL about a loose playfulness. It also has some of his most enjoyable, if often utterly meaningless, lyrics.
He is my favorite artist by a wide margin, but I have always felt like we only got about half of what he was capable of. I voted for No.2, but there are a half dozen more I would have clicked if I was allowed.
every night when paul mccartney lays his head on the pillow and talks to whoever it is he talks to (we have someone/thing different) he should ask that entity to be sure to say thanks to john lennon. where would paul mccartney be without john lennon?
i say the same thing about neal schon....he should send steve perry flowers every day, because without him he would be doing santana songs in an southern california bar somewhere.
I don't even understand the idea of flawed lyrics. But that's because in my view, the one and only requirement for lyrics is that they're words, or even just vocal sounds, to sing. I don't know how one could get that wrong.
Too much "granny music" (thanks John) would have been my choice, but it wasn't part of the poll...
But I do love me some Macca
13 - basically, he’s so versatile that it works against him.
Not an issue for me, but that’s what I get from the complainers, among many other ridiculous claims.
Probably his greatest flaw is he's still alive and making music. If he had died years ago he would be canonisedby now.
I think George Martin had a lot to do with the corralling of the Beatles and keeping most of what they did artistic, Revolution #9 not withstanding. With George out of the picture, Paul was left to his own devices and freely made his own decisions which sometimes were flawed.
His greatest flaw is he doesn't know which of his songs are great and which are complete crap. Bad Paul is easily as bad as the bad Elvis they mocked.
(But I like the Guess Who signature).
I think there is some truth to that. He, like almost every artist, needs an editor. It is rarely a good idea to be writer, arranger, producer and lead musician. There needs to be someone like George Martin on Tug Of War to say "that one's not finished Paul."
Honestly, I don't understand narrow tastes, either. It's the inability to process new information unless it's just like the old information.
At least Paul wrote them. Crap or no crap. Elvis had no such talent.
I agree but I get the impression that Paul doesn't take too kindly to that. I don't think he was very kind about Nigel Godrich was he?
So..I came back to this thread to say this:
If Paul has ONE FLAW...
It's the fact that I don't think he's ever truly sang about himself!
I don't expect him to get all 'confessional' in any of his songs, but....
but, I feel the 'entertainer' in him has set a precedent where he will either sing 'a love song of certain actions involving love' (either gone right or wrong), or sing about a 'fictional' character.
Opinions don't necessarily mean 'political'.
He's kept all personal opinions about (most) things close to his chest.
And that....makes him 'weird'.
I see what you’re saying but keep in mind his biggest ever hit (“Yesterday”) was about the loss of his mother.
his lack of laying his heart on the line seems odd.
Don't get me wrong... perhaps, I DON'T wanna know what's going on in his head!......
And, maybe it's that fact that; when John did it, he didn't want to.....
That is really interesting, however I thnk it bolsters what Vince said, as I am 51 and never before knew that. So obviously, although he was writing about something very personal to him, he did it in a way that made the point ambiguous.
Maybe his greatest flaw is half-baked songs... but it's hard to judge him solely on that.
I’ve always thought that’s one of his strengths though - his songs can be interpreted in many ways and they’re carried by the strength of their strong melodies. There’s actually people here that refuse to believe “Blackbird” is a civil rights song even though Paul has gone on record saying so. So maybe it doesn’t work for everyone! But that’s another reason why John and Paul were so good together.
I don't agree with your last sentence!
I think McCartney has put plenty of effort into many of his songs, now I agree that some were meant just for the fun of it, but that distinction should be made.
McCartney has said many times that his goal is to be the best songwriter he can be, like Rogers and Hammerstein, he says it is still his goal. He has always worked at his craft, and he has produced plenty of great music!
For me, it's been under-utilizing his bands. The only original record he's cut with his then-touring band in the last 38 years was Off The Ground, which I like, but admittedly has it's share of filler and is a less distinguished set of songs than Flowers In The Dirt was.
Since re-assembling a live band 15+ years ago, he still has yet to cut a full record with them, using them sporadically at best and rarely at worst. There's elements of his live band I don't care for (namely the sloppy lead guitar work), but I'd much rather hear a McCartney record with them bashing out 12 new songs in the studio than the one-man band sound of much of his solo work from Flaming Pie onwards.
And yes, there were so many albums and years in which he didn't have a band...imagine how much better all those records, from Press To Play to Memory Almost Full and beyond, would've been with a steady, trusted group of musicians bringing a live energy to the proceedings, instead of the studio cats of the day during the 80's or Paul just playing most instruments himself.
As a sidenote, I also think it's an absolute travesty how much of Paul's solo output has never, ever been played live.
No such thing as "granny music'. A song is either good or bad. And John has had his share of the latter (speaking of the "ex" years).
c'mon, you don't really believe that mccartney, other than yesterday, did all those songs without lennon's help do you?
i believe in my heart that lennon taught mccartney everything he could about song writing. mccartney definitely had a way with a melody, but he was just lost when it came to putting the lyrics down. and this gets re-enforced throughout his entire career.
Separate names with a comma.