Paul McCartney

Byrnzie

What do people here think of him? A music journalist friend of mine interviewed him last week and when I told him I thought McCartney was a cunt he didn't like it.
I said he's just a washed-up old irrelevance who's in the same league as Phil Collins or Brian May - Muso's like him but he's done nothing of any interest or importance since leaving the Beatles. With all his millions and talent he could have done so much in the past 40 years but instead he's just sat on his wealth and produced the odd record of bland, pointlessness for 50 year old men with goatee beards and tweed jackets.

Am I wrong?

Edit: Also, what was the recent trip to Israel all about? My journalist friend said it was because his children are Jewish. Is that true? Either way, what does his children being Jewish have to do with him playing in Israel and celebrating the ethnic cleansing of Palestine at a time when Palestinians are still being killed and oppressed?

Paul McCartney is pointless.

Byrnzie

walrus wrote:

yes..you're wrong

Care to elaborate? I don't have time for soundbites.

justam

Byrnzie wrote:

What do people here think of him? A music journalist friend of mine interviewed him last week and when I told him I thought McCartney was a cunt he didn't like it.
I said he's just a washed-up old irrelevance who's in the same league as Phil Collins or Brian May - Muso's like him but he's done nothing of any interest or importance since leaving the Beatles. With all his millions and talent he could have done so much in the past 40 years but instead he's just sat on his wealth and produced the odd record of bland, pointlessness for 50 year old men with goatee beards and tweed jackets.

Am I wrong?

Edit: Also, what was the recent trip to Israel all about? My journalist friend said it was because his children are Jewish. Is that true? Either way, what does his children being Jewish have to do with him playing in Israel and celebrating the ethnic cleansing of Palestine at a time when Palestinians are still being killed and oppressed?

Paul McCartney is pointless.

This post sounds as silly as me saying that I don't see why people thought Edison was an important inventor because "What has he done LATELY?!"

Byrnzie

justam wrote:

This post sounds as silly as me saying that I don't see why people thought Edison was an important inventor because "What has he done LATELY?!"

As far as I'm concerned Lennon was the driving force behind the Beatles. McCartney was no Keith Richards, and he's proven that by being completely irrelevant since the Beatles broke up.

So what you're saying is that we should all be reverential and admiring of him because of what he was a part of 40 years ago? Maybe he deserved that kind of attention back then but now he's just a has-been.
He's had 40 years in which to cement his own individual legacy, and what's he done? Fuck all.

justam

Byrnzie wrote:

As far as I'm concerned Lennon was the driving force behind the Beatles. McCartney was no Keith Richards, and he's proven that be being completely irrelevant since the Beatles broke up.

Many people seem to feel that it was the two of them together that made them great.

Byrnzie

justam wrote:

Many people seem to feel that it was the two of them together that made them great.

I'm not talking about the past. I'm talking about what he's done as an individual in the past 40 years. The fact is, he's done nothing of any worth.

justam

Byrnzie wrote:

I'm not talking about the past. I'm talking about what he's done as an individual in the past 40 years. The fact is, he's done nothing of any worth.

It almost doesn't matter though. What he did during the peak of his career is more than most people do in a lifetime. He could have retired entirely and it's more.

Unfortunately, some people do their best work early rather than at the end of their lives. It probably sucks for him to know that too.

Byrnzie

justam wrote:

It almost doesn't matter though. What he did during the peak of his career is more than most people do in a lifetime. He could have retired entirely and it's more.

Unfortunately, some people do their best work early rather than at the end of their lives. It probably sucks for him to know that too.

I just find him to be totally uninteresting, and so I fail to understand why people still get gushy about him.
Lennon was in a totally different class altogether. They're like the equivalent of Ali and George Foreman.

g under p

PM is sort of OK, George Harrison then Lennon were much better and comes nowhere close to David Bowie.

Peace

Evacuation Rules

Byrnzie wrote:

As far as I'm concerned Lennon was the driving force behind the Beatles.

That statement alone proves that you don't know shit about the Beatles. You're just another one of those people who is completely oblivious to anything McCartney has done and feels the need to bash him because he isn't as cool as Lennon or as spiritual as George. PAUL was the driving force behind the Beatles, the glue that held the band together, and he was easily the most musically talented member. This is a fact, not an opinion. He was also very involved in the production of their records and he did just as much producing in the later years as George Martin did. He is a legend amongst serious musicians for his revoultionary bass playing alone, forget the fact that he is a world class songwriter. I would be surprised if you've even heard one of his albums all the way through. His last few have been excellent. So maybe you should spend some time expanding your musical knowledge instead of spouting off negative and stupid rhetoric.

RolanBolan

I would say that yes, some of McCartney's solo work isn't very good. However, his work with The Beatles is absolutely irrefutable.

I actually just listened to his new solo album. Speaking as someone who has not been a big fan of McCartney's previous solo efforts, I must admit this new album is a turn in the right direction. It's a good album and you should listen to it if you haven't.

Like it or not, the guy is kind of a music legend. I think that it's fine to not like someone who is considered a legend and I hate it when people will give artists credit for their latest albums just because they are "legends." But in this case, with this new album, the credit is well-deserved. IMO

Julien

Byrnzie wrote:

What do people here think of him? A music journalist friend of mine interviewed him last week and when I told him I thought McCartney was a cunt he didn't like it.
I said he's just a washed-up old irrelevance who's in the same league as Phil Collins or Brian May - Muso's like him but he's done nothing of any interest or importance since leaving the Beatles. With all his millions and talent he could have done so much in the past 40 years but instead he's just sat on his wealth and produced the odd record of bland, pointlessness for 50 year old men with goatee beards and tweed jackets.

Am I wrong?

Edit: Also, what was the recent trip to Israel all about? My journalist friend said it was because his children are Jewish. Is that true? Either way, what does his children being Jewish have to do with him playing in Israel and celebrating the ethnic cleansing of Palestine at a time when Palestinians are still being killed and oppressed?

Paul McCartney is pointless.

I agree... i don't really like this guy. he always seem to behave like he thinks he's god.

Byrnzie

JWBusher wrote:

That statement alone proves that you don't know shit about the Beatles. You're just another one of those people who is completely oblivious to anything McCartney has done and feels the need to bash him because he isn't as cool as Lennon or as spiritual as George. PAUL was the driving force behind the Beatles, the glue that held the band together, and he was easily the most musically talented member. This is a fact, not an opinion. He was also very involved in the production of their records and he did just as much producing in the later years as George Martin did. He is a legend amongst serious musicians for his revoultionary bass playing alone, forget the fact that he is a world class songwriter. I would be surprised if you've even heard one of his albums all the way through. His last few have been excellent. So maybe you should spend some time expanding your musical knowledge instead of spouting off negative and stupid rhetoric.

I couldn't give two shits about the Beatles.

I also couldn't give a shit about his supposed musicianship. If I did then I'd probably be into jazz and/or classical music.

Paul McCartney is pointless.

By the way, nice username. It speaks volumes.

Byrnzie

RolanBolan wrote:

I would say that yes, some of McCartney's solo work isn't very good. However, his work with The Beatles is absolutely irrefutable.

I actually just listened to his new solo album. Speaking as someone who has not been a big fan of McCartney's previous solo efforts, I must admit this new album is a turn in the right direction. It's a good album and you should listen to it if you haven't.

Like it or not, the guy is kind of a music legend. I think that it's fine to not like someone who is considered a legend and I hate it when people will give artists credit for their latest albums just because they are "legends." But in this case, with this new album, the credit is well-deserved. IMO

Thanks. I'll give it a listen.

Byrnzie

JWBusher wrote:

That statement alone proves that you don't know shit about the Beatles. You're just another one of those people who is completely oblivious to anything McCartney has done and feels the need to bash him because he isn't as cool as Lennon or as spiritual as George. PAUL was the driving force behind the Beatles, the glue that held the band together, and he was easily the most musically talented member. This is a fact, not an opinion. He was also very involved in the production of their records and he did just as much producing in the later years as George Martin did. He is a legend amongst serious musicians for his revoultionary bass playing alone, forget the fact that he is a world class songwriter. I would be surprised if you've even heard one of his albums all the way through. His last few have been excellent. So maybe you should spend some time expanding your musical knowledge instead of spouting off negative and stupid rhetoric.

When was the last time Paul McCartney ever rocked the boat, said anything interesting, or even just voiced an opinion of any kind?
With his millions and his clout is he not someone who is able to take a few risks?

He may be the greatest musician in the world for all I care. He's pointless.

dunkman

Byrnzie wrote:

As far as I'm concerned Lennon was the driving force behind the Beatles.

any weight your argument had was lost when you typed this... Lennon was lazy.. Paul drove them forward all the time... Paul was into Stockhausen and was much more avant-garde with his musical progression through the sixties. John used to say things like "make it sound like an orgasm" to George Martin and then he and Paul would produce John's songs.. Lennon has the kudos he has these days because he was murdered... the real Lennon was that he was a belligirent junkie who punched his wife

But saying Paul has done fuck all for 40 years might be true... who cares... he was one of the 2 most influential musicians/songwriters ever.. he and john broke the mould, set the world alight and their legacy is enough for him to waste his next 40 years if he so wished... The Beatles were that important.

p.s. listen to his new album The Fireman, i think you'll change your opinion (even slightly)

JordyWordy

Byrnzie wrote:

When was the last time Paul McCartney ever rocked the boat, said anything interesting, or even just voiced an opinion of any kind?
With his millions and his clout is he not someone who is able to take a few risks?

He may be the greatest musician in the world for all I care. He's pointless.

You should listen to his newer albums. Also, he's incredible stamina in live shows for an old guy, and his voice has lasted incredibly well in his older age.

The "musicianship" aspect of him is pretty central to the Beatles' sound and the general development of modern recording methods.

Its funny, cos I dont really rate Lennon's solo stuff that greatly, certainly not much greater than McCartneys. Lennons solo work was more social & popular, but in general there was nothing adventurous about it either. I also believe if Lennon was still alive he'd not be nearly as cool as he's remembered as being.


If McCartney is no good then nobodys any good. The man helped invent modern rock.

Byrnzie

So your argument rests on the following:

dunkman wrote:

Paul was into Stockhausen


Lennon has the kudos he has these days because he was murdered
Lennon was lazy
Lennon was that he was a belligirent junkie who punched his wife

Sorry, but you haven't built up much of a case here.

dunkman wrote:

saying Paul has done fuck all for 40 years might be true... who cares

I care that people regard him as some sort of untouchable and that the light shines out of his ass.

I just don't see it myself.

Byrnzie

walrus wrote:

hmm..activism?
Concerts for the People of Kampuchea
Band Aid
Live Aid
Ferry Aid
The Concert for New York
PETA
Adopt-A-Minefield

These aren't examples of activism. They're examples of someone playing music in front of millions of people on live t.v megathons. Everyone and his dog jumped on that band[aid]wagon.

Byrnzie

JordyWordy wrote:

If McCartney is no good then nobodys any good. The man helped invent modern rock.

I'm not saying he isn't a talented musician. I'm just saying that I don't care.
Phil Collins is also a talented musician. So were Status Quo.

iamica

Saying that he's done nothing of worth in the past 40 years is pretty harsh. I may not like everything he's done, but I think he's put out some decent stuff.

JordyWordy

Byrnzie wrote:

I'm not saying he isn't a talented musician. I'm just saying that I don't care.
Phil Collins is also a talented musician. So were Status Quo.

If you dont like him,fair enough. you dont need to slate all the responses that favour him. But downplaying his career to the extent you are is laughable.


Again, majorly ridiculous comparison.

Jimi Hendrix was a great musician. David Gilmour is a great musician. Roger Waters, Leonard Cohen, Eric Clapton, David Bowie, etc.

McCartney wrote some of the most famous songs of all time; Blackbird, Let It Be, Hey Jude, etc..... Phil Collins & Status Quo did not write songs of that calibre & importance.

Byrnzie

Each to their own, I suppose.

Jeremy1012

I despise Paul McCartney with an almost frightening intensity and rage.

My reasons are numerous and I'd hate to bore you all with the details so I'll address one that Dunk brought up. McCartney's assertion that he was into Karlheinz Stockhausen to make him seem like some kind of avant-garde innovator is hilarious. I've listened to Stockhausen, I've appreciated Stockhausen. If I were to enter a studio and tell everyone in the room to bang every instrument and surface, record it for 14 minutes and then engulf it in reverb, before stowing it away for 40 years with a nice name like "Carnival of Light" and then brought it out and told everyone how experimental I was and how I was the only person in pop listening to Stockhausen and Cage, you'd all think I was a terrible cunt and you know it. Stockhausen was a composer, not a pop star who liked to make noises.

DewieCox

Without McCartney, John Lennon wouldn't have known when to stop, with the weirdness.

I agree, alot of McCartney's solo/post Beatles work is garbage, relatively. The same can be said for just about any band or musician that is making new music past the age of 40.

Macca's legacy was sewn into the fabric of the universe, with the Beatles, and no amount of "bad" music is gonna cut those threads.

digster

Jeremy1012 wrote:

My reasons are numerous and I'd hate to bore you all with the details so I'll address one that Dunk brought up. McCartney's assertion that he was into Karlheinz Stockhausen to make him seem like some kind of avant-garde innovator is hilarious. I've listened to Stockhausen, I've appreciated Stockhausen. If I were to enter a studio and tell everyone in the room to bang every instrument and surface, record it for 14 minutes and then engulf it in reverb, before stowing it away for 40 years with a nice name like "Carnival of Light" and then brought it out and told everyone how experimental I was and how I was the only person in pop listening to Stockhausen and Cage, you'd all think I was a terrible cunt and you know it. Stockhausen was a composer, not a pop star who liked to make noises.

Wouldn't that be a problem with the Beatles as a whole, as opposed to McCartney on his own? I mean, John Lennon was right there alongside him with most of the avant-garde experimentation.

fada

McCartney basically ran the Beatles after Brian Esptein died. Pepper, Magical mystery tour were all his ideas. Lennon had a hit of singles in a row but McCartney was king from 67 on while Lennon was in a drugged out haze and Harrison was chomping at the bit to express himself.

I like his solo output but he missed a george or John to get more rockier material out of him. Possibly the greatest ever writer of a love ballad

Jeremy1012

digster wrote:

Wouldn't that be a problem with the Beatles as a whole, as opposed to McCartney on his own? I mean, John Lennon was right there alongside him with most of the avant-garde experimentation.

Uh huh but Lennon wasn't going around talking about how innovative and avant-garde he was, I'm sure he knew damn well his Two Virgins type albums were pure shite. McCartney thinks he's a genius. He's not, he wrote some good pop songs over 40 yeard ago. He's actually preparing to release a song that was neither good enough for release at the time, nor was it good enough for inclusion on their odds-and-sods Anthologies, because the other members deemed it to be self-indulgent crap. Now he thinks it's worthy of release because it will, in his own words, show how experimental he has always been.

He's so far up his own arse it's unreal.

fada

Who put the tape loops on "Tomorrow Never knows"? He deserved credit surely for that

Wilds

DewieCox wrote:

Without McCartney, John Lennon wouldn't have known when to stop, with the weirdness.

I agree, alot of McCartney's solo/post Beatles work is garbage, relatively. The same can be said for just about any band or musician that is making new music past the age of 40.

Macca's legacy was sewn into the fabric of the universe, with the Beatles, and no amount of "bad" music is gonna cut those threads.

I saw Paul play a couple years ago. The show was amazing. What a Beatles show might have been like if they ever decided to play post 1966 or whatever date the studio stole them away for ever.

I quoted DewieCox to highlight his point that Lennon did not know when to stop.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VH3cZb8XZek

dunkman

Byrnzie wrote:

So your argument rests on the following:



Sorry, but you haven't built up much of a case here.

I dont need to build a case... music history has built the case... its cool to diss McCartney... as Jeremy90210 will no doubt prove by posting a post about how McCartney should be dismissed because he was into avant-garde electronica when he shouldnt have been.

byrnzie wrote:

I care that people regard him as some sort of untouchable and that the light shines out of his ass.

I just don't see it myself.

you like punk musicians... you like authors... you think Hunter S Thompson can do no wrong... but if someone says otherwise you'd defend him would you not? thats all I'm doing.. i listen to some of his basslines, melodies, lyrics from the sixties and they are still fucking awesome... your disdain for him is for what reason? because people like him? because he didnt do anything of worth since 1971? who gives a fuck... he was one of the 4 (arguably one of the 2) most important people in popular musical culture.