If Sir Paul can figure out that record labels are fast becoming relics, then maybe the rest of the world can...

Hero? More like trite douchebag.

How the hell did Ringo wind up being the coolest Beatle?

amazing_live_seamonkeys: How the hell did Ringo wind up being the coolest Beatle?

By having Paul be the only other one left.

I am a huge Beatles fan, so I feel like I can say this: fark you Paul. Get off your soapbox.

I just know the response this'll get - but I'm still entitled to my opinion:

John Lennon was SO the most overrated Beatle. How many really good songs did he write after 1971?

Be honest with yourself. It isn't as many as 5 is it?

Whereas Paul, for all his 'Frog Chorus' horrors, has turned in at least a couple of dozen stone cold classics since the Beatles called it a day.

Lord Brixton: I just know the response this'll get - but I'm still entitled to my opinion:

John Lennon was SO the most overrated Beatle. How many really good songs did he write after 1971?

Be honest with yourself. It isn't as many as 5 is it?

Whereas Paul, for all his 'Frog Chorus' horrors, has turned in at least a couple of dozen stone cold classics since the Beatles called it a day.

Haha. So you don't like Lennon's post Beatles output. I disagree entirely.

I think McCartney played it massively safe after the Beatles and Lennon took risks. As a musician I know which I appreciate more. Your opinion is as valid as anyone's though.

Lord Brixton: I just know the response this'll get - but I'm still entitled to my opinion:

John Lennon was SO the most overrated Beatle. How many really good songs did he write after 1971?

Be honest with yourself. It isn't as many as 5 is it?

Whereas Paul, for all his 'Frog Chorus' horrors, has turned in at least a couple of dozen stone cold classics since the Beatles called it a day.

Not to disagree with you but Paul has had a little more time than John in which to write music. If you discount everything from 1980 to present day from Paul, to keep the time frames even, I think they would probably tie in the number of "classics" both released in the post-Beatles era.

/Huge Beatles fan
//Don't favor one Beatle over any other

Lord Brixton: I just know the response this'll get - but I'm still entitled to my opinion:

John Lennon was SO the most overrated Beatle. How many really good songs did he write after 1971?

Be honest with yourself. It isn't as many as 5 is it?

Whereas Paul, for all his 'Frog Chorus' horrors, has turned in at least a couple of dozen stone cold classics since the Beatles called it a day.



How can you judging him as a beatle when you are only looking at his post-beatel work?

John gave me the best Beatles songs I know, even if my fav post Beatles album is Paul - Ram

George.

(because nobody has mentioned him yet)

John Lennon was SO the most overrated Beatle. How many really good songs did he write after 1971?

Be honest with yourself. It isn't as many as 5 is it?



I can name at least five Lennon solo albums that I think are good. He had plenty of great material though most of it was too cutting edge for hit radio. Hit writing style was much more raw and honest than McCartneys. McCartney on the other hand strived to be accepted as a hit maker and wrote lots of songs with catchy melodies and arguably forgettable lyrics.

Keep in mind that John only had 7 solo albums (including three with Yoko), McCartney has had 20. These numbers don't include "hits" packages, live albums, oldies cover projects or side projects.

Both Lennon and McCartney have had respectable solo careers. It is silly to compare the two and the only reason people do is because both were both Beatles.

QU!RK1019: George.

(because nobody has mentioned him yet)

This. All Thing Must Pass is better than anything John or Paul did.

bglove25: QU!RK1019: George.

(because nobody has mentioned him yet)

This. All Thing Must Pass is better than anything John or Paul did.

THIS.

Still, why all the Paul hate???? The dude wrote some killer stuff, in the Beatles and afterward. God forbid a dude be optimistic. If you're not cynical and bitter you're not cool?

Feh. Fark all the kool-kid Beatle haters out there. You're not edgy or different by being a McCartney or Beatle hater, you're just a douche.

As for Paul, sure a great deal of his output post-Beatles sucks, but I have no problem with him being the happy-peppy Macca that always seems to pop up. When one has been through what he has, and has helped enrich, yes enrich the farking world with music, then I say let him be any way he wants to be.

IndyMBA Not to disagree with you but Paul has had a little more time than John in which to write music. If you discount everything from 1980 to present day from Paul, to keep the time frames even, I think they would probably tie in the number of "classics" both released in the post-Beatles era.

Well, technically they both had the same amount of time. John is living vicariously through Paul by talking to him in his head. At least thats what Pauls says.


/thinks that Paul should be clubbed like a harp seal

AdolfOliverPanties:

Feh. Fark all the kool-kid Beatle haters out there. You're not edgy or different by being a McCartney or Beatle hater, you're just a douche.


Yeah, kind of shades of the "you're not a gangsta" thread.

Who the fark cares which Beatle is coolest? Are you all 14 years old and is this 1963?

Paul was just as innovative and out there as Lennon in the day - Paul was the one experimenting with tape loops and writing things like Helter Skelter, remember.

LEAVE PAUL ALONE!!

Seriously though, if you're looking for the meaning of life in McCartney's lyrics, you're doing it wrong. Paul was always about the music first, and as far as brilliant musical ideas, you can't beat his seventies output.

Then the eighties happened, and they happened to everybody.

All Thing Must Pass is better than everything John or Paul did combined.

Valdes: All Thing Must Pass is better than everything John or Paul did combined.

Too bad Phil Spector puked all over such a great album. Have you heard any of George's simple demo versions of the songs? They're stunningly good.

big_pth: If Sir Paul can figure out that record labels are fast becoming relics, then maybe the rest of the world can...

He's still on a label. Just not a major label.

Nice article. Good to hear even artists as big as Paul McCartney are still on our side.

QU!RK1019: Valdes: All Thing Must Pass is better than everything John or Paul did combined.

Too bad Phil Spector puked all over such a great album. Have you heard any of George's simple demo versions of the songs? They're stunningly good.

I read an interview of George Harrison regarding this album as they were remastering it. His summary of the original: "Too much reverb".

I'm sorry, the answer is E: All of the Above. None of the Beatles had a totally bad solo career, and each produced music that was pretty damn good at times.

When I see Paul I always start to think about who's going to take his place, you know? Not musically, or anything like that, but charity wise. All the big shows for causes over the last 20 some years seem to end with Paul, "Let it Be", and a group sing of "Hey Jude". There's got to be someone out there who can fill those shoes, but we need to start thinking about it now. I'm assuming it will be Bono, but you never know....

i don't get into beatles pissing matches or puddle beatle paddle battles either but ringo is the coolest. always was and still is.

yeah....it isn't a position shared by many but myself and stan lee.

jj325: When I see Paul I always start to think about who's going to take his place, you know? Not musically, or anything like that, but charity wise. All the big shows for causes over the last 20 some years seem to end with Paul, "Let it Be", and a group sing of "Hey Jude". There's got to be someone out there who can fill those shoes, but we need to start thinking about it now. I'm assuming it will be Bono, but you never know....

Marilyn Manson is going to do a 180 when he hits 40. Just wait and see.

I'm with you Omorda. I've been a Ringo girl since the day I heard them.

bglove25: QU!RK1019: George.

(because nobody has mentioned him yet)

This. All Thing Must Pass is better than anything John or Paul did.

There was really only one post-Beatle album worth listening to.

/Just avoid the disc with the jams

L&M as a songwriting team were greater than the sum of the parts. Plus, Lennon sucked at making records, and McCartney was too good in the studio for his own good. The breakup also meant that each member lost access to the great instrumentalism of Ringo, Paul on bass and George, in addition to George Martin and his engineers' abilities. The result? Utter crap (mostly) from both despite their great talents.

/The only thing that sucks more for McCartney than being 64? Being 65

Florida pisses on Cuba: bglove25: QU!RK1019: George.

(because nobody has mentioned him yet)

This. All Thing Must Pass is better than anything John or Paul did.

There was really only one post-Beatle album worth listening to.

/Just avoid the disc with the jams

L&M as a songwriting team were greater than the sum of the parts. Plus, Lennon sucked at making records, and McCartney was too good in the studio for his own good. The breakup also meant that each member lost access to the great instrumentalism of Ringo, Paul on bass and George, in addition to George Martin and his engineers' abilities. The result? Utter crap (mostly) from both despite their great talents.

/The only thing that sucks more for McCartney than being 64? Being 65

That's a bit strong, don't you think? Paul had a massive hit with Mull of Kintyre during the Wings era. It passed up all the Beatles singles in sales, if I recall.

Both of them had two really good post-Beatles albums, a couple really amazing songs, a few scattered other good songs...and then everything else they put out was crap.

George had one really good album that pissed all over both of theirs.

AdolfOliverPanties wrote:

"Fark all the kool-kid Beatle haters out there. You're not edgy or different by being a McCartney or Beatle hater, you're just a douche."

I must agree that I'm baffled by the anti-McCartney vitriol most of your guys are dispensing.

True, most of his solo output hasn't been particularly trailblazing, but what the Hell... Most of it is simply enjoyable pop music. And that's what it's meant to be. He seems to be a genuinely good guy, and he's doing what he loves. No one is forcing it on you.

I'm about as big a music-geek as you'll find. It's my job, (both of my jobs, actually) it's my hobby, and it's always been in my blood. Sure, I listen to plenty of very odd and edgy material, some of it so "out there" it would probably make most of your heads asplode. Not to win geek-cred, but because I find value in it.

But I also have nearly all of McCartney's solo albums. Every once in awhile I'll pop one on the turntable, and what comes out is innocent and fun pop music, performed by a very talented musician who is obviously having a ball.

Music doesn't always have to be about inventing new genres or making big political statements. It's just as important for music to exist which has the sole purpose of making you feel good. Nothing at all wrong with that. And it's that niche that Sir Paul's music fits very well.

For all the Paul haters: The second half of Abbey Road.

That is all.

mpv81: For all the Paul haters: The second half of Abbey Road.

That is all.

This. And Most of Help! too.

Me, what I've always wondered was "WHO WROTE WHAT?" in the Beatles, regarding Paul and John. Did they generally sing the songs that they wrote (as in lead vocals)? I mean how much did they collaborate *really*??

I think some of the best Beatles songs are the ones where John and Paul sing together (and/or wrote together?), or in a duet. Their distinct voices blend so well.

Kind of like Gilmour and Waters of Pink Floyd.
ie. "Mother", "Not Now John", .... can't think of any others at the moment.

Or even Hogsdon and Davies of Supertramp
ie. "Child of Vision", "Dreamer", "Rudy", etc.

Third_Uncle_Eno: Me, what I've always wondered was "WHO WROTE WHAT?" in the Beatles, regarding Paul and John. Did they generally sing the songs that they wrote (as in lead vocals)? I mean how much did they collaborate *really*??

I don't think they even knew. Paul certainly isn't saying.

Third_Uncle_Eno: Me, what I've always wondered was "WHO WROTE WHAT?" in the Beatles, regarding Paul and John. Did they generally sing the songs that they wrote (as in lead vocals)? I mean how much did they collaborate *really*??

It's mostly whoever wrote it sang it, more so in the later post-Sgt Pepper days. Sometimes though, like if there was a real high part in a John song, Paul would do it. At least this is what I read once...

The only person either one really wanted to work with
was each other.

They knew their partner that well.

Just get over the Beatles and listen to Modest Mouse or Built to Spill.... Far superior. Quite being nostalgic...

That was supposed to be "Quit being nostalgic..."

Sorry...

JesusTossedMySalad: Just get over the Beatles and listen to Modest Mouse or Built to Spill.... Far superior. Quite being nostalgic...

Um, no. Built to Spill is my favorite band (and has been for about ten years), but it's ridiculous to claim they're superior to the Beatles. They've got great songwriting and musicianship, but nothing they've done is as revolutionary as what the Beatles did from 66-69.

JesusTossedMySalad: Just get over the Beatles and listen to Modest Mouse or Built to Spill.... Far superior. Quite being nostalgic...

Just three tracks off of "Rubber Soul" entirely eliminate both of the bands you just mentioned, and I like Modest Mouse.