I hate Paul McCartney so much.

The intensity of my hate of Paul McCartney is indefensible, and I know this. I realize that it's at least half irrational. I am crying out for help, I think. Tell me why I should not hate Paul McCartney. Help me be well. Make me a whole person like everybody else.

no really, everyone hates Paul McCartney by now

I think the root of my hate is that there's no way not to compare him to John Lennon, and their sensibilities are so massively different, and I prefer John so vastly over Paul. Also Paul got old and awful, and while John may have been showing signs of lameness near the time of his death, we'll never really know if he would have pulled out of it or not. With Paul, there's proof. He's lame. He's awful. And it makes me think that in a certain way, he always was.

His lyrics. God al-fucking-mighty. They were always bad.

makes a good pie

I think that was Linda.

well considering shes dead i assume he is the one manning the bakery

or i just have really old pies in the freezer

Is this what you mean?

http://www.village-bakery.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=56&Itemid=28

I can handle sweet baked goods that have a Paul McCartney sensibility behind them. In fact, that might be exactly where his sensibilities belonged in the first place. He would have been a master pastry chef.

Also, let's please stop calling him "Macca". It's endearing and all, but it's not very pretty to say, is it? The two different "a" vowels so close together are a bit dissonant.

actually they're assonant

Different "a" sounds?! how do you pronounce it?

Different "a" sounds?! how do you pronounce it?

mæ'kə

Always assumed it was two short 'a's - 'Ma' as in a US (or Irish or Scouse) mother + 'Ka' as in what they call automobiles on Merseyside.... it's a common enough nickname in Dublin, and thus, I would imagine, Liverpool, and that's how its pronounced here.

Maybe it sounds better in a Liverpool accent. I have a kind of flat American Midwestern accent.

Although thinking about it a bit more, a more common Dublin variant is 'Macker' which, if said in scouse would probably sound more as you've transcribed it.

John may have been showing signs of lameness near the time of his death

Near the time of his death = 1965 onwards?

Paul is so much better than John that your stance is just willful delusion and in bad taste.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDBkySeyiDo

That's awesome.

Ok, see, that's what I want. Reasons not to irrationally hate him.

Seriously, that video is just lovely. :)

I was going to write some long thing about how great Paul's solo career has been musically, up to and including parts of Memory Almost Full (not so keen on Electric Arguments). But it's all in the ILM archives if anyone really gives a shit. Anyway, Paul's solo career is infinitely more colorful and rewarding and totally bat-shit insane than John's, even if you use 1980 as the cut-off point. And of course, Paul has released some terrible shit but there is something very rewarding about following all the strange twists and turns of his musical career.

As a public persona, he's pretty fuckin' dud though...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xe990JYsbNo

I have gone from really disliking him (thought he re-wrote his own history re: the Beatles and esp. Lennon and then there was that time he tried to get "Lennon and McCartney" changed to "McCartney and Lennon" and also various tales of veggie over the topness) to loving him like a brother. Probably just getting soft in my dotage.

I even like this soppy old shit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYstxLoOnYA

Ok see that's where I draw the line.

"Soppy" is maybe my biggest beef with him.

I know exactly what you mean and normally I wouldn't put up with it either but I seem to have developed a blind spot for his (extremely) soppy side. As colin says upthread his solo stuff (and Wings stuff - is that the same thing?) is fascinating in it's variety and I had disregarded it too long, probably because of his "macca" persona and all that "thumbs aloft" business repeated ad nauseum in Q.

I was going to write some long thing about how great Paul's solo career has been musically, up to and including parts of Memory Almost Full (not so keen on Electric Arguments). But it's all in the ILM archives if anyone really gives a shit. Anyway, Paul's solo career is infinitely more colorful and rewarding and totally bat-shit insane than John's, even if you use 1980 as the cut-off point. And of course, Paul has released some terrible shit but there is something very rewarding about following all the strange twists and turns of his musical career.

As a public persona, he's pretty fuckin' dud though...
--ColinO

I guess. Like I said, though, it's impossible not to compare him to John, fair or not. John's big themes are sadness, anger, despair, madness, more madness, and drug-induced madness. Paul's big themes are WHOOP DE DOODLE and love and this big Anthony Newley cheese-eating grin. In comparison, you just want to punch him.

Ok, I do.

Paul's big theme is "Oh man, that was some seriously good pot." You are deluded in so many ways it is scary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdTs-iLBKME

xp Well, I won't deny that, but be that as it may...

When I compare something really brilliant by Paul like "Yesterday," with one of John's best songs, like "Dear Prudence," I experience them on a totally different level. "Yesterday" has an incredible melody and some very sad lyrics, but it's all very literal. It works on one level. "Dear Prudence" has basically no melody, almost no lyrics, and it's one of the most moving (maybe even stunning) songs I can think of. John drills deeper, every time. Paul feels glossy by comparison, if not outright silly.

Oh, and he can be VERY silly.

I guess that's not reason enough to hate him by itself. Let me thing of others.

I also think that Sgt. Peppers isn't a "Paul record," it's a record nearly ruined by Paul. His whimsy is slightly off-key; his seriousness is forced; he's trying too hard pretty much front to back. To me it's an awkward album of mostly Paul songs, punctuated at the end by maybe the very best Beatles song. By John.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4w5-XZ244c

Chaos and Creation may be my favourite album of Macca's. Certainly the best since the '70s, McCartney II and Tug of War possible exceptions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOzDaLV90oA

Those key changes in Jenny Wren are kind of brain-twisting.

A Day in a Life "by John"? That's unfair, the track is a collaboration between John, Paul and George Martin and the production team equally.

wake up, get outta bed, drag a comb across my head

DUM DA DA DUM DA DAAAA

i agree with the thread title

silly old man, only possible person next to whom heather mills could look remotely sympathetic

Paul gets the bit in the middle, describing in very literal terms the same day that John has the sense and sensibility to wax rhapsodic over.

Not that that's a bad thing -- it's all give and take, etc.

Paul contribution to ADitL was more Musical more than lyrical. Wasn't it he (+Martin) who worked out the final orchestral orgasm?

Having not read the book, I do not know.

I can totally get on the bandwagon re:hating Paul's sappiness, but jesus christ that's some serious willful ignorance if you're totally ignoring that he also had some seriously ballsy rock. I prefer John overall, but he never packed enough of a punch to rival "Helter Skelter" or even "Why don't we do it in the road". Not to mention how great of a track "O Darlin'" is.

paul wins for helter skelter alone. punkier than the punkiest punk. made people murder cuzza him...oh wait john did too. kinda backfired with john though.

im not a mccartney obsessive - i just love various beatles/solo songs - but him appearing on the x factor was dissapointing.

scott! too soon!

lol Just caught the double meaning of "backfire"

Not to mention how great of a track "O Darlin'" is.

― Fetchboy, Saturday, December 26, 2009 3:41 PM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark

i have a couple friends who are now getting into the beatles, confusedly traipsing through their discography-and have each somehow convinced themselves that paul is the better of the two. every time i argue with them about it the conversation never gets past "YA BUT DUDE O DARLING IS SUCH A FUCKING GREAT SONG!"

but him appearing on the x factor was dissapointing.

Agreed, and this after expressing displeasure with these kind of talent shows (iirc he made some guarded, but clearly dismissive, remarks about American Idol on some chat show clip I watched on YouTube). He's such a needy entertainer and populist that he can't help himself. The list of crimes against Macca's name is a long one, I admit, but... I dunno. All the best pop stars tend do stuff that embarrasses themselves, and their fans, from time to time. I guess.

samosa, hopefully they'll change their tune once they hear "the long and winding road"

oh ffs, yes

Seriously, that video is just lovely. :)

― kenan

Watching that video for "Coming Up" for the third time, I realized why I like it so much. It's a huge, huge Talking Heads ripoff.

Can't not love that song, though.

hey did you hear that michael jackson was a washed out paedophile? also, phil collins is crap. and don't get me started on airline food. what's that all about, eh?

Watching that video for "Coming Up" for the third time, I realized why I like it so much. It's a huge, huge Talking Heads ripoff.

― kenan, Saturday, December 26, 2009 3:10 PM (17 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Can't not love that song, though.

― kenan, Saturday, December 26, 2009 3:12 PM (16 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

kenan u r otm

"Soppy" is maybe my biggest beef with him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uldu_1-JCJE

Paul's big themes are WHOOP DE DOODLE and love

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYUBehXPJTY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b7qaSxuZUg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmvef-I0nyY

John's "big theme," from 1967 on, was YOKO YOKO YOKO YOKO YOKO. (Whereas George's big them from 1967 to about 1980 was "You guys are all dicks. Hare Krishna.")

George was pretty OTM, really, but George was also too chill to write "Cold Turkey." Trade-off.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s10t32X5wvI

Nobody told me there'd be people like this.

No Lennon worship, I just mean... he was an extremely weird dude who reinvented himself because that's how he moved through life. Some people are like that. Some are not.

What was Ringo's theme?

Outliving them all. Just you watch.

In a way, Ringo totally wins.

I'd never seen that "Imagine" video, and I love the message above the door. "You Are Not Here." A negation of "Wherever you go, there you are."

I have written in Sharpie on my bathroom mirror, "You're not what you think." Not because anyone is other than they believe themselves to be, but because the things people think do not comprise the essence of the self. I dunno, maybe that's a thought for a George thread.

All I know is, Paul is a stupid little troll.

Only needed to watch Paul's shameless/shameful mugging thoughout the "Coming Up" video one time through to remind myself why I generally find Paul distasteful despite his occasional ability to write a really killer pop tune.

Stop being so negative Nancy guys! Need I remind you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMfkVGCU_BA

Also need I remind you that he once irritate a cat? Shameful.
McCartney angers area cat

"Umm, that came about just 'cuz I'd read a review of a record which said, "And this group really got us wild, there's echo on everything, they're screaming their heads off." And I just remember thinking, "Oh, it'd be great to do one. Pity they've done it. Must be great--really screaming record." And then I heard their record and it was quite straight and it was very sort of sophisticated. It wasn't rough and screaming and tape echo at all. So I thought, "Oh, well, we'll do one like that, then." And I had this song called "Helter Skelter", which is just a ridiculous song. So we did it like that 'cuz I like noise." —Paul McCartney, 1968

So we did it like that 'cuz I like noise." —Paul McCartney, 1968So we did it like that 'cuz I like noise." —Paul McCartney, 1968So we did it like that 'cuz I like noise." —Paul McCartney, 1968So we did it like that 'cuz I like noise." —Paul McCartney, 1968So we did it like that 'cuz I like noise." —Paul McCartney, 1968So we did it like that 'cuz I like noise." —Paul McCartney, 1968So we did it like that 'cuz I like noise." —Paul McCartney, 1968So we did it like that 'cuz I like noise." —Paul McCartney, 1968So we did it like that 'cuz I like noise." —Paul McCartney, 1968So we did it like that 'cuz I like noise." —Paul McCartney, 1968So we did it like that 'cuz I like noise." —Paul McCartney, 1968So we did it like that 'cuz I like noise." —Paul McCartney, 1968

i strongly feel that 'you're not what you think' written in sharpie on kenan's bathroom mirror would be a ludicrous contribution to a george thread.

I've been reading Paul's (ghost written) semi-autobiography Many Years From Now and it's great. He comes out of it really well I think, as he should I suppose. I find it totally believable because you can clearly see his flaws, but they're quite endearing ones really - he's pushy but kind of embarrassed about it; and he can be proud and pretentious, but about the weirdest things, like his films or friendships with posh arty types. I think that's quite a class issue, that he looks up to them and the work they produce, and makes a big thing of apeing it even though it's so obviously inferior to his own. You see it in his own down-to-earthness and old-fashionedness in things like family values, where he can't help but make his own work look like the product of graft and right-place-right-time rather than genius.

I see him now as a very similar guy to Lennon, except that he's simultaneously a bit more confident and a bit less self-confident than John, if that makes sense. At least they're both types I recognise.

I don't think Lennon was self-confident at all! He made his neuroses entertaining (most of the time).

Maybe personally he was a wreck, but I think Lennon would always've been happy artistically doing his own thing if *he* thought it was good - McCartney sounds a bit like he isn't sure how to rate his own stuff without the right kind of approval. Hence him seeming to pay more heed to what his posh and swinging pals might've thought of his films or whatever crap he helped to set up in some gallery or other. A flaw, sure, but a very human one.

This might reflect the ghost writer being a posh, swinging type himself - there are plenty of anecdotes about what those fools were up to in those days, and every one of them sounds as stupid and boring as you'd expect when you're reading a book about the guy who wrote 'Penny Lane'.

Mugging for the camera in a pop video! The gall of some people!

Yeah I know, but there's just something about the "oh look it's the camera, be precious!" look on his face over and over and over again in that video that just seems embarassing to me.

somewhere tim ellison is lurking in tears.

There's one bit in Jonathan Gould's excellent Fabs biog Can't Buy Me Love where he describes Lennon as being the boldest but also the most insecure of the group, and when the Beatles began to push against the "trap" of their cartoonish Fab Four persona, John was left somewhat adrift. As the others sought out new interests (Ringo: domesticity, George: Eastern mysticism/sitar etc, Paul: man-about-town, cultural flitting about), John was in his Weybridge mansion mashed off his box.

asshole or depressed
Why don't people think it's cute when I act like an asshole?
"Sure I'm an asshole, but I'm a *funny* asshole."

did you start all those? to be honest, i don't actually think you are THAT funny.

I didn't start any of those. That's an ILX search for "asshole." I thought of it when I read the phrase "the boldest but also the most insecure." Yep. Asshole.

That phrase was written about Lennon.

I have been reading along with the cassette storybook, thank you.

The asshole, I find, is after second glance seldom the least tolerable person in the room.

The bore -- the bore is deadly.

You're telling me.

Too easy.

yeah, even i stopped myself. but you MAKE it so easy!

Do I?

yeah, you're good at it. it's a gift!

i'll bet paul is the nicest beatle. i've heard nasty stories about the other three being real jerks to people, but i haven't heard that kind of stuff about paul. maybe i'm wrong though.

Yeah, I lived in Tucson, where McCartney had a ranch. Various people I knew met him at stores and in parks, etc. and he was quite nice to them all.

The loss of anyone who hates him. McCartney is brilliant. Of course he will never ever equal the fantastic songs he wrote in the 60s for The Beatles, but his ballads are always ace. Horrible lyrics at times, yes, but the melodies and harmonies are fantastically strong, and that is much more important.

There are a few exceptions where he just goes too far into the world of MOR or nursery rhymes ("Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da", "Yellow Submarine", "We All Stand Together"), but usually it's just pure perfection

From the 70s onwards, many of his followers have made constantly better music than himself though.

Never. Always. Too far. Fantastically. Usually. Constantly.

his christmas song is banal

simply. having. a. wonderful.christmas.time/repeat endlessly

recently read that gould book. paul comes off somewhat better than john, i'd say -- not least because of yoko, of course

]What was Ringo's theme?

When you feel you need to have a side, you lose.

kenan the 1st 2 mccartney solo albums are great - u should get into them

This thread has so little to do with Paul McCartney, his name shouldn't even be in the title.

can we change it to i hate kenan so much. just for fun

Or change it to one of Macca's pseudonyms, like Apollo C. Vermouth.

If not Percy Thrillington.

not to actually engage with this thread or anything but paul is a rad bassist and a great songwriter and by most accounts a pretty nice dude

if i could change 1 thing about him i would have him grow a beard since hes very jowly in his old age

http://i47.tinypic.com/2mdfcd5.jpg

his christmas song is banal

― chief rocker frankie crocker (m coleman), Sunday, December 27, 2009 3:09 AM (6 hours ago) Bookmark

i demand more challenging christmas songs!

'once in royal david's city' more like 'load of soporific pablum'.

It's only right that we're ending this particular year with a Who's Best: John or Paul? thread?

i almost started a "Defend The Indefensible: Paul McCartney" just cause the guy gets so much shit, but i thought it was actually unnecessary until now. a shortlist of things i would bring up in this (for now) entirely theoretical thread:

1) tomorrow never knows: yeah john ripped off the lyrics from the tibetan book of the dead, but paul: 1) made the weird ass tape loop sound effects 2) came up with looping the band, thus inventing sampling 3) that bassline!

2) speaking of basslines, i'm an ex-bassist, and as any bassist will tell you, paul is hands down one of the best ever. but you'd never really know it if you weren't a bass player cause his stuff isn't really flashy or showy, just astounding in ways that are almost impossible to describe to a layman, and often extremely difficult for mere mortals to duplicate.

3) any beatles biographer will tell you, paul was the nicest beatle by a country mile, and went way out of his way to be personable with everyone, when all the other beatles were if anything going out of their ways to be complete pricks (and john more than the rest of them put together)

4) it's already been mentioned, but... helter skelter!

5) compare and contrast ^^^ with, say, just for example, blackbird. now tell me the dude isn't mad talented. i dare ya!

6) as far as post beatles careers: yeah, john had imagine, but paul had live and let die. LIVE AND LET DIE!

i rest my case. dude gets a pass for anything shmaltzy he does in his old age as far as i'm concerned, no one's brilliant forever

i think he's less schmlatzy in his old age than he was in his middle age. there isn't much schmaltzy on his last three records.

I got Macca's back on most things but HELTER SKELTER IS RUBBISH. I hate how it's become the Paul song it's okay for NME readers to like. I know it's used an an example to prove that Paul isn't all about cloying sentimentality, but really, there are better tracks that do the job a whole lot better.

Maybe Paul as a person is worthy of hatred (can't say.... I've never met him), but after I read Kenan's status update on Facebook expressing the same sentiment, I dialed up a bit of McCartney/Wings on ye olde iPod and re-assessed. Sure, he's released a godawful amount of abject crap, but for every "Hi, Hi, Hi" and "Pipes of Peace" there's a been a "Maybe I'm Amazed" and a "Live & Let Die."

...and "Live & Let Die," to my mind, is unimpeachable.

"Waterfalls" is indeed crap, tho'.

x-post from far back

i'm the last guy to defend McCartney -- musically some good and some shit, and yes to whoever said public persona is (often) a dud -- but i don't think "Coming Up" is much of a TH ripoff at all. From what i can tell, by the time he'd recorded it they'd only put out their first two lps. Even if he was trying to cop their style, the song sounds more like Remain in Light than anything on 77 or More Songs. And, it's a great song off an album that's aged surprisingly well.

Somewhat off topic, but I always wonder what Lennon thought about Punk/New Wave. I mean, consider that he was known to hang out with photographer Bob Gruen, a man who also spent huge swathes of time with the Sex Pistols and the Clash and the CBGB alumni. Surely it must have come up at some point, no? Did John ever go down to CBGB and check out the Ramones, I wonder?

HELTER SKELTER IS RUBBISH. I hate how it's become the Paul song it's okay for NME readers to like.

does not compute.

"Waterfalls" is indeed crap, tho'.

Demand to differ!

John mentioned the Clash, Queen, Blondie, and the Pretenders several times in his last few interviews, and hearing Lene Lovich and the B-52's at a Nassau club's New Wave night inspired him (so he says) to wake up the "missus" and record new music.

...and then he made Double Fantasy.

I'm not a bass player yet am consistently blown away by Paul's bass playing- I find the "if you weren't a bass player you'd never really know" line pretty fuckin' condescending...

x-post

wah wah wah

i'll just put it this way, the public at large doesn't really focus on his bass playing but i reckon it was a huge part of the beatles appeal, it's just people hardly noticed cause he didn't, like, play a lot of bass solos and shit - i always felt like most people don't even really think about this when they talk about the guy, but really he's a monster on the instrument

...and then he made Double Fantasy.

...which was a nice enough album, but no less MOR than macca at his MORest

I'm not a big Beatles fan, but what i do like tends to be Paul. Solo, no contest, bad as he gets, nothing is - not even Mull of Kintyre - is as repellent as 'Imagine'.

Thing is, the Fabs are hardly even in my top 6 British bands of the 60s, and maybe not in my top 50 ever - I don't hate them: if they's been about as successful as the Hollies, then i'd probably like them, uncomplicatedly, about as much as i like the Hollies. But up against the Kinks, the Who, the Small Faces, the Pretties, even the Animals or Them, not to mention the Stones, and they don't compare all that well. Davies and Townshend, even Jagger/ Richard are much better songwriters, more literate, funnier, angrier. Winwood, Morrison, Burdon and Marriott are all better singers. Ogden's, SF Sorrow, The Who Sell Out are better organised, more adventurous and less clunky than every Beatles LP.

Weirdo.

The Dave Clark Five, now there was a band.

but for every "Hi, Hi, Hi" and "Pipes of Peace"

Now I'm going into major stan territory, but the former is redeemed by some awesome guitar work by Henry McCullough (and is a far sight better than its b-side, "C Moon"); and the latter is actually pretty OK except for DANGER CHILDREN'S CHOIR.

DANGER CHILDREN'S CHOIR

^^^ decent band name imo

Really good Wings/Paul songs: "Maybe I'm Amazed," the Band on the Run singles, "Listen to What the Man Said," "Letting Go," "Press," "No More Lonely Nights" (I prefer David Gilmour's prickly slash guitar over the outro to almost anything in Gilmour's catalogue), "This One," "My Brave Face" (Elvis C gets him to talk-sing). His vocal on "No Other Baby" from Run Devil Run never fails to shatter me: an older, scarier "Oh! Darling." I'm sure there's lots of other tunes and tunelets scattered over dozens of albums I don't care for, although a friend burned a really good comp about nine years ago.

I haven't kept up with him in years but I had to review Memory Almost Full in 2007 and was taken aback by how, after all these years, he's split the difference between "casual" and "meticulous" without gorm.

"The Dave Clark Five, now there was a band."

they were a great band!

but, yeah, as much as i love all the bands sonofstan mentions, i am firmly in the beatles-as-semi-religion-oh-my-god-there-is-no-way-those-four-people-could-create-this-cuz-it-is-cosmik-godhead-and-way-bigger-than-all-of-them camp. it is darke majik and i don't claim to understand how they did it. i could listen to studio outtakes all day long and still never get it.

which is why i don't give a hoot what paul has been up to for the last, i dunno, 30 years. he's done enough. he's a musician and i'm sure he has fun playing and writing.

I had no idea McCartney was supposed to be an innovative, top-shelf bass player. I wish he'd dump vocals for an album and just show off his bass-playing technique in some new material, so I can try to hear what others are hearing (n.1) without the Beatles burnout factor (which I've had for about 25 years now).

_____________________________
(n.1) But maybe I'd miss it all, since I'm a layman. I'd still want to hear it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obFcsEtFIKA

just like a funky solo bass album?

xxxpost Listen to the bassline on "Taxman" - particularly the "If you drive a car I'll tax the street" section - there are little runs in there that make you wonder if he has twenty fingers or something.

Just for starters.

whoops that should a been just xxpost

Re: YouTube Video Lesson -- Cewl!

Re: s1ocki -- yes, that's what I mean.

hes not a showoffy bass player. hes just really good at crafting bass lines.

A friend of mine was in the same NYC studio while Paul was putting together some of "Memory Almost Full" and his story is Paul was super nice and asked him if he wanted to come downstairs and take a listen to some tracks he was putting down. My friend obliged and once they were in the room Paul proceeded to sit behind the drumkit and overdub some stuff, singing along. After they were done Paul supposedly asked for "your honest opinion" and my friend could only come up with "Yes, Sir Paul, sounds great!" I told my friend he probably wanted to hear "Could use a tighter snare sound" or something.

he's a good guitarist too! (blackbird being one of my fave guitar tracks of all time)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uqGCqMYaHQ

Someone probably makes the same point upthread (I've just skimmed), but I've never totally understood the desire to break the Beatles into their constituent parts for the purposes of x-was-so-much-better-than-y. I'm being a hypocrite, because I've done the same thing myself: recently, on another site, I kept score of my favorite-Beatles-song-per-album according to songwriter. And I understand why teenage girls did it in 1964. But in 2009, it seems this simple to me: no Paul, no Beatles. And that brushes away everything else he's done the past 40 years, good, bad, or indifferent.

Because of these I can forgive any of Paul's musical sins:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgQqniYDjUs&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgQqniYDjUs&feature=related

Oddly enough some his best bass lines are on other people's sons.

Oops, second post was supposed to be this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vAqekT-GuA

not nearly the songwriter that lennon was but yeah would echo others and say the real star of the beatles remasters was mccartney's bass playing.

Meant to say it up thread, in my little rant, but i agree about McC as a bass player - easily the best thing about them. His melodic gift and overall musical imagination was never quite up there with Brian Wilson, but it might be a diverting counterfactual to imagine if Beatles records had been made the way BB records were done - i.e. with session musos of the calibre of the Wrecking Crew, but with Paul on bass.......

reading this thread i realized i never really listened to memory almost full - i thought dance tonight was catchy but a bit lazy and i'm not sure i even listened to the rest of it when i got it... but actually the album's not half bad really. not embarrassing at all! i bet it would really stand out in a head-to-head comparison of the latest from, say, sting, or ozzy, or the latest stones lp...

it might be a diverting counterfactual to imagine if Beatles records had been made the way BB records were done - i.e. with session musos of the calibre of the Wrecking Crew, but with Paul on bass.......

it's an interesting thought experiment but i reckon it'd never have worked, the beatles playing together as a band just had this great alchemy that couldn't ever be reproduced by studio cats, no matter how good....

yeah, you need george and ringo for sure. they complete the ring of majik. lots of 60's bands used studio musicians - like the stones, kinks, hollies, etc - but you weren't disrupting inner fyre majik by using them. not true with the beatles.

its not a big deal to me though. paul revere & the raiders are one of my favorite bands on earth and i have no idea who the hell is playing on half their records.

This thead is awesome because of how many posts were made Yesterday.

the 1st 2 mccartney solo albums are great

co-sign

but, yeah, as much as i love all the bands sonofstan mentions, i am firmly in the beatles-as-semi-religion-oh-my-god-there-is-no-way-those-four-people-could-create-this-cuz-it-is-cosmik-godhead-and-way-bigger-than-all-of-them camp. it is darke majik and i don't claim to understand how they did it. i could listen to studio outtakes all day long and still never get it.

See, i can fully take that from you, because you know more about music than most people alive, but its the 'Beatles are best band ever' from people who've never even heard a Kinks LP all the way through, never mind 'Forever Changes' or 'Odessey and Oracle' or 'Song Cycle' that gets me.

its hard to listen to all the music of all time ever

i personally can't stand peeps who think the beatles are the best band ever without having heard my lil bro's concept-album rock opera abt the hadron collider

Band chemistry is the elusive element. How can you explain these four people coming together to make such beautiful noise? According to people who were there, no one on the Liverpool scene expected the Beatles of all people to make such an enormous leap in musical skill and ability. Maybe it was all the nights in Hamburg? Maybe they sold their souls to the devil? Who knows? The only other band I can think of that made such a huge unexpected leap in ability was Joy Division. It's the same type of situation where the whole is so much greater than the parts.

Is it safe to say that he's one of the best two or three all-around instrumentalists in the history of pop music? Seems like Paul and Prince are right at the top.

No. It's not.

I'm glad I asked first.

Multiple xposts, but I think using "Helter Skelter" to defend Paul is kind of missing the point. It's an okay song to show that Paul could be "hard", but doesn't show much of his genius. I'm quite willing to grant that Paul wasn't as edgy, hard or witty as John. But John didn't have the ear for melody and counterpoint or compositional talent of Paul. It took both of them working together to make the Beatles. I think John helped to sharpen and focus Paul's predilection for whimsy in a more mature and intriguing direction, and Paul helped to keep John from wandering too far from good melodic hooks and solid pop construction. Neither alone were as good as they were both together. And I think Paul's greatness as bass player was of a piece with his compositional gifts and ear for counterpoint. He wasn't a showy technical player (thank God).

Previous post is perfect. And: George (or Georges, if you add Martin) probably steered both of them towards weirder experimentation, and Ringo kept everybody grounded and was a great drummer besides. 4 (or 5) parts = a much greater whole.

"Paul was one of the most innovative bass players ever. And half the stuff that is going on now is directly ripped off from his Beatles period...He's an egomaniac about everything else, but his bass playing he was always coy about." - John

xxp-I think using "Helter Skelter" to defend him against statements like ""Soppy" is maybe my biggest beef with him." is probably a little more relevant than talking about counterpoint and his ear for melody.

Right, but "soppy" vs counterpoint and ear for melody aren't mutually exclusive either.

Of course not, "Helter Skelter" starts off with counterpoint, but that's not why it aint soppy.

There was a pretty good documentary on BBC earlier this year about the Motown package tour of Britain in '65 (set up by Dave Godin) - in between really nice and sharp recollections from various Vandellas and fond memories from classy old soul boys, there was Paul, there to tell the random punter why Motown was important. And there's a lovely clip where he starts explaining why Jamerson was the business and starts singing various bass lines to illustrate.

I think that if you're going to defend Paul against the charge of being "soppy" by pointing to "Helter Skelter", which is very atypical of his output, it doesn't help much. Because if something has to sound like "Helter Skelter" in order to not be soppy, then yes, 99% of Paul's songs are soppy. I would turn it around and say that even his very sentimental, melodic songs are not "soppy". I don't think there's anything soppy about "Yesterday" or "Eleanor Rigby" or "Blackbird" - if you do, then you just have different taste in music than I do.

xp

Nor can you always say Paul was the musically conservative Beatle. In the Gould book, Paul seemed to be into noise and Stockhausen before Lennon. I wish in some alternative Beatles universe that McCartney and Lennon had been able to collaborate on some noise tape cut-up experiments. McCartney's tendency to structure and Lennon's love of randomness could have lead down some interesting musical pathways.

mccartney was only really soppy after the beatles, and then only occasionally. my love is pretty fucking soppy.

"I wish in some alternative Beatles universe that McCartney and Lennon had been able to collaborate on some noise tape cut-up experiments."

i think they did this! its called revolution #9.

paul actually was the only one who didn't contribute to revolution 9

and then he lobbied for it not to be included on the album, so the story goes.

stay away from the pot, kids:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8XwXeDeFJA

b-side version:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oH3k8NXpu-4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9ieDAE3yIU

is there a rub&tug edit of secret friend?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvL5FVFVX1c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9IRtMo3rUE

has everyone heard Carnival Of Light? The avant garde noise experiment that Paul and John made?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rxIMvRy04c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wuy8tE1lEBM

Thanks Scott, that's what I'm talking about!!

I dunno, I'm guessing that's fake. I'm hearing snippets from Strawberry Fields and Revolution 9 in there.

Don't know about Carnival of Light either, but the Revolution track is definitely real.

I don't think that's real - it's famously never leaked and it'd get plenty of fanfare if it did. It doesn't sound like any description of it that I've read either - it should be a lot more cut-up and loopy. Davey D's right, it's a mix of Revolution 9 and some other stuff.

apparently this one matches up the best with some description in a book of it. the barcelona mantra and other stuff. but i dunno. probably is fake. its the right length too. paul could tell us, he's got a copy. it was dumb george and ringo who didn't want it put out with the anthology stuff. hate those guys. paul was all for it.

Looking forward to that 'I hate Ringo Starr so much' thread

I wonder if a 'dumb George' thread would get any play...

Well, all I know is that there's a bunch of the vocal shrieking that's present in Revolution 9, which was taken from the recording of Revolution 1, which was tracked over a year after Carnival of Light. Thus ends my Beatles nerdout.

Nor can you always say Paul was the musically conservative Beatle. In the Gould book, Paul seemed to be into noise and Stockhausen before Lennon.

OTM. Paul had already been underwriting Indica and lurking around AMM and Pink Floyd shows.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBjj3pkw_nY

Full-on Paul despisal is pretty hard to sway...but fwiw, I was a Paul-hater til I sat down with the remasters and did my little comprehensive tour back through their whole catalog. Growing up I'd always taken the Beatles piecemeal, keeping the parts I loved and forgetting most of the rest of it, and definitely not listening to the songs I didn't think I liked. But when I took the catalog as a whole, and really listened to it, even the songs I thought I hated were, well, kind of fucking great. And Paul really stood out for me...not just the bass playing, not just his 'rawk' moments...but for me it's that endless push towards new, or different, or better, or louder. The innovation came from all of them but the ZEAL for innovation...man, you have to love him for that. This will sound sappy and dorky, but honestly, I think Paul loved the Beatles like WE love the Beatles. He was their biggest fan. Still is. The wheels probably would have fallen off in a few years if it wasn't for him leading the parade and infecting everyone with his enthusiasm. I'm sure it would have driven me barmy too in the end...but when you zoom the focus out, when you can step back from his sentimental and simple lyrical leanings, and see what a huge fan of music he was in general, and of the Beatles specifically...it made me feel bad for sneering at him for all those years.

I see really no point in writing about how avante garde he sometimes was, or that he made "Helter Skelter" etc., when the main point is, his ballads aren't soppy at all. Well, some of his solo ones are, but even now, most aren't. That is, unles you count most classical music from before 1850 as "soppy".

What about the 2nd side of Abbey Road, does that count for anything?

i like paul because he has a pretty face.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v156/ichabodmine/James_Paul_McCartney-small-pic.jpg

when i started listening to the beatles (more recently than i am comfortable admitting), i went in as a contrarian, trying to prove that paul was the better beatle, because everyone was telling me that john was better, and i believed them. i thought that if i went in trying to defend the weaker argument, i would approach the debate more critically, and i'd appreciate john more than i would if i went into the whole thing already convinced that he was the best.

now, i thnk i've listened to the beatles enough that i can take a stance, and my stance is that within the context of the band it is folly to rate one over the other. however, the beatles are a pop band, and as progressive and complex as their music became, in the latter stages of the beatles' career it feels like john was pressuring the others (paul) to measure up to his standards of politicism and songwriting. he's always deriding paul's songs, calling them trite 'granny shite,' and that is just really cuntlike behaviour, i think. paul always stayed true to the the beatles being pop music, and was constantly progressing inside of this format.

"A Day in the Life" would have been the best Beatles song ever even if you take out the orchestra overdubs. From the very first line this is apparent.

Also Paul = Golden Slumbers. GOLDEN SLUMBERS!!! Beautiful wrenching sadness and sleepiness!! Don't you see? Don't you see?

I'm quite willing to grant that Paul wasn't as edgy, hard or witty as John. But John didn't have the ear for melody and counterpoint or compositional talent of Paul. It took both of them working together to make the Beatles. I think John helped to sharpen and focus Paul's predilection for whimsy in a more mature and intriguing direction, and Paul helped to keep John from wandering too far from good melodic hooks and solid pop construction. Neither alone were as good as they were both together.

This is perfect, really. I agree in almost every case.

Even in the case of lyrics, which is a small consideration but an easily relatable one, Paul's are a bit fluffier on the whole, but John's wander too easily into inscrutable. Certainly it was their wonder twin powers that made the Beatles. No argument at all here.

Lennon was harsh toward his own songs too. I can't count how many times he said this or that song was crap, shit, or worthless.

lennon otm

Personal favorite:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42IPlbC9H_Q

LOVE that one. Naive Teen Idol calls it "Paul doing Steely Dan" or something.

maybe i don't have my antennae out far enough or something, but i've never understood paul hate. seems like a genial guy to me, who hasn't made any more errors of taste and judgement than any number of other big pop stars. and so much of his music is great, as revealed in this thread. always been pretty impressed by his little richard impressions too.

The two main reasons for the Paul hate:

1. He made a lot of ballads. Some people dislike the idea ballads whatsoever and that idea has been around since the birth of rock'n'roll.

2. He is a pretty boring and ordinary chap. Nothing sensational about his behaviour. Music writers like the occasional tabloid headline, and McCartney doesn't give them those, apart from once a year when the list of richest musicians is published. This is also why Liam Gallagher and Pete Doherty have gotten more attention that more musically talented people within the same genres.

And.... well....

3. He was middle class (although lower) whereas the rest of The Beatles were working class.

That's wrong, Geir. Lennon was the posh one. The other three were working class, but McCartney sounds it a little less than George & Ringo because his mam wouldn't let him talk broad scouse.

yes, that's true.

Er, as Lennon reminded us over and over, he was more comfortable financially than the other three were.

I always thought the reason Paul McCartney is so hated and despised was "the girl is mine" duet with MJ.

That's a decent song!

I do really want to kick him in the nads for "Simply Having a Wonderful Christmastime"

"maybe i don't have my antennae out far enough or something, but i've never understood... hate"

I think sometimes it's just misdirected emotion from the frustrated and dissatisfied.

'peace in the neighbourhood' is the song i most can't forgive.

That "Arrow" bit is class stuff. Like very much.

If "McCartney" (the first solo album) doesn't cure your hate then nothing will. I've been listening to that all day and I think it's now my favorite thing he's ever done. Maybe even more than solo songs on Beatles albums.

search: Paul's drumming on "Dear Prudence" (esp the climax) is pretty great.

The McCartney hate is mostly as Paul's material is often thought of as more love/moon/June stuff whereas John's is a bit more absurd/surreal/psychedelic.

I've been staring at Steve's user name for a moment here and and turns out it's NOT a giant face looming about the scenery in a Mario Bros. game.

Pretty sure it's two square-balled erections protecting 2 eggs in a skillet.

If "McCartney" (the first solo album) doesn't cure your hate then nothing will.

I don't hate McCartney in the slightest, but other than "Maybe I'm Amazed" and "Junk", said album has nothing much to offer.

"Teddy Boy" is pretty great, too.

"every night" is very weet.

I still rep for "Momma Miss America."

Been listening to II a LOT this week/weekend. Frozen Jap is an incredible instrumental.

"Hot As Sun" and "Glasses" are lovely. I really like "Lovely Linda" too. There's something about the feel of all these songs and bits of songs coming together. It's like the first ever home studio/mixtape album.

"got to get you into my life"

I guess the home studio/mixtape is part of my problem with it. Like most of McCartney's 70s output, it suffers from being way too low-fi and do-it-yourself. McCartney is an excellent pop songwriter, in the classic form. And classic pop needs production values to work at its best.

Not really.

I ended up at coachella this summer because i was working for company to band PR (shoot me)l. I wasn't even going to bother seeing him cause i hated the festival/thought i hated him. But then i was walking behind the stage and get this: dude lands in a field in a fucking HELICOPTER, then walks onto the stage, hugs and talks to Brian Wilson like there were goddam brothers (cause of course Brian Wilson just chills five feet side stage when his pal paul plays a show), then grabs his guitar and opens with "Live and Let Die". McCartney is the shit we're just unable to grasp his vision, just like people used to be ashamed too admit Abba was awesome.

That's how he rolls

Geir you are the dumbest person ever

If you think Paul's such a genius, how about you stop telling him what to do and try dealing w his production etc decisions? He just may know more abt music than you.

Always liked the story from '08 when he and his gf drove down Route 66 in an old Bronco - surprising the hell out of people along the way
http://www.qcsunonline.com/news/mccartney-6319-paul-route.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1042057/Macca-new-love-Nancy-kicks-Route-66.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1043373/Sir-Paul-new-love-Nancy-pics-Route-66.html

Second side of Abbey Road is pretty much a Paul deal, and more than makes up for any of his later sins.

Such a fucking tired babyish thread. Paul McCartney is old and annoying but then again so are our dads. And they still fucking rule and you would be noone without them.

Oh and Paul was the one off doing workshops with Stockhausen in the 60s, the frog chorus cannot strike that from the record. Saying that Id probably listen to the frog chorus over most of Lennons dreart singing in bed in a dustbin phase.

Temporary Secretary

xpost LOL

temp secretary is str8 fire

He played this huge expensive show in this summer in Atlanta at Piedmont Park, which is like 10 minutes walking distance from my house. Tickets were of course astronomical so I didn't go. Later one of my friends was telling me that the day of the show they ended up just going into the park to watch the soundcheck and they ended up playing almost an entire set worth. They lucked into seeing a free Paul McCartney show basically all to themselves! I can't believe i missed out on that.... =(