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.

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.... =(