The Paul McCartney appreciation thread

[Tarc]

For

Getting this prize would just be good enough, but getting it from this president…

and

After the last eight years, it's great to have a president who knows what a library is.

at the White House appearance with President Obama. Predictably, the right-wingers are screaming bloody murder. :nopity:

[Romulox]

1. The bassline to "Dear Prudence" still brings a smile to my face.

That will always be enough for me! Love you, Paul!

[emulatorloo]

21. The bassline from "A Little Help From My Friends" is so beautiful too

It always make me feel happy to be alive.

[elocs]

2. In comparisons with John Lennon, Paul McCartney is at the disadvantage of not being martyred.

Because of that his musical greatness has not been appreciated to the degree that it should. He simply was not as good at PR and self promotion as Lennon was, but while John was spending his time getting stoned Paul was learning his craft. (Still, I bought all of John's albums, including "Sometime in New York City".)

[avaistheone1]

4. Ahh nice fantasy you got there,

but Paul was notably getting very, very stoned too.

John Lennon was the conscience, the musical genius, and the wit of the Beatles. Lennon helped lead the social revolution of the sixties. Sorry, it wasn't Paul.

[Romulox]

5. Uh-hum....George Harrison's solo output is far more consistent than anything John did solo...

Those awesome songs and guitar riffs? Yeah, a lot of that was George! :hi:

[KatyMan]

6. And much of it was Paul!

Quite the guitarist in his own right. As an amateur beatleologist or whatever you'd call it, I'm coming more and more to the opinion that from Revolver on, Sir Paul was the main creative force behind the band, and the John and George's songs would have suffered greatly without his input.

[Romulox]

30. It's like four blokes from Liverpool came together to form this fantastic group!

I agree that Paul is under-rated as a bass player and a musician! I don't know how to rank the contributions of the various members, but I don't think any of the Beatles were extraneous to their success!

[KatyMan]

7. eloc didn't say anything about social revolution,

and yes, Paul was getting stoned, but he wasn't a junkie like Lennon. I'm not disparaging his contributions to society or to music, but the Saint John hagiography is way overblown.

[elocs]

27. Yes, I was referring to the music and the time when Paul was living with Jane Asher's parents' home.

John was spending his time getting stoned, Paul was learning his craft.

After Lennon's death there is no way that Paul could ever compete with the St. John legend.

[lunamagica]

8. Do you need to post this here? This isn't the place

And you are the one with the nice fantasy

[AnArmyVeteran]

14. I agree with you Avaistheone1... Without John, no Beatles, no McCartney

But I believe Paul is a musical genius. But John was the soul of their group. The Beatles would have been more like the Monkeys with Paul as their leader and if John wasn't in the band.

I miss all of the songs and commentary John could be sharing with us. He always had such a profound way to make a point with his tongue and through his songs. It's easy to tell which Beatles songs were mostly written by John and those written by Paul.

[lunamagica]

16. Yeah, the Monkees would have written Yesterday, Hey Jude, The Abbey Road suit

Blackbird. Those songs couldn't have more soul

The Monkees would have come up with Sgt Pepper, sure.

Why the need to come with the "John was better" meme here? Can't we have one thread about Paul?

[emulatorloo]

19. Davy's "Eleanor Rigby" would have been astounding.

LOL

[AnArmyVeteran]

25. I'm not putting any of them down, but without John or Paul the band wouldn't have been near the same

John's words were more biting and had more commentary. Paul contributed great lyrics & melodies. Both working together they created pure magic. I didn't say any was better, just different. They were both musical geniuses of equal, but with different talents. John started the band and without him there would have been no Beatles. The four of them together formed the most unique and talented band in history. I can't envision any group getting even close to the magic created by the Beatles.

[lunamagica]

28. OK, it's just that the Monkees comparison sure looked like a put-down! :) n/t

[emulatorloo]

17. John said there would be no Beatles without Paul.

And he was right. And he said it several times in several interviews.

I really wish we could let this go. John respected Pau, Paul respected John, they had amazing chemistry, they worked well together, they wrote well together. They drove each other to greatness as performers and songwriters.

[Ishoutandscream2]

34. Your statement was as baseless as the previous one

There are many misconceptions about John and Paul. And in terms of musical genius, look at the production of the Beatles after 1966. John was going through a rough period, and Paul was carrying the day. You could simply tell by the singles' releases - John only had two A sides from 1967 to the breakup.

I'm not knocking John. I think he did help define the era. But Paul was doing the avante-garde thing, too, and was totally misrepresented by the so called intellectuals. Paul was just as much (or more) of a musical genius than John.

[lillypaddle]

36. Why should we pit them against one another?

They were (are)all of them, unique, great, and totally unforgetable.

[pepperbear]

22. which proves you know nothing.

[elocs]

24. And evidently you know all there is to be known.

How do you get your head through the door? :shrug:

[H2O Man]

23. Respectfully disagree.

Paul was far more intent upon learning the skills associated with commercial PR, from the beginning of the group's fame until the end. John did not desire to wear clean-cut suits, or churn out an endless supply of silly love songs. John's work had far more of an edge to it.

I would agree that Paul is under-appreciated in one important area: he could write very good lyrics when, as John pointed out, he wasn't editing them due to being self-conscious regarding what others might think.

John's greater popularity and influence is the simple result of far more people liking him to a much greater degree than people like(d) Paul.

[lunamagica]

29. respectfully, a recent poll showed Paul as the most popular one

And John was a PR master. His not wearing "clean-cut" suits was part of the image he crafted and wanted to project.

[H2O Man]

33. Yet two more recent

and influential poles -- the North AND South -- list John as more popular. One expert noted that he was more popular than Santa.

All of the Beatles wore Teddy Boy clothing early on. Paul insisted upon the change that Brian suggested.

Both Lennon and McCartney were part of the most important musical group ever. John was definitely more influential in the larger societal context.

[CBR]

31. I agree. nt

[jaxx]

3. Predictably, the right-wingers are screaming bloody murder.

Sure they are. They probably spent the Beatles years still watching Lawrence Welk.

[lunamagica]

9. They are even making death threats. It's scary n/t

[jaxx]

12. Oh that's just how they worship each other.

Being bad asses is next to godliness in their books.

[lunamagica]

10. Thank you Paul for writing and singing the music that brings joy to my life

Thank you, thank you for the music! :loveya:

[JitterbugPerfume]

11. The Beatles were revolutionary

as a group, and each one contributed something unique . This is BS trying to pit John against Paul against George etc

What about Ringo? Does any one love HIM the best!!:shrug:

[AnArmyVeteran]

15. Each brought their own uniqueness to form the best band in history...

Each of them were important to their success. it was the perfect blend of talent. I doubt if any band will ever come near their greatness.

[emulatorloo]

20. the four of them had amazing chemistry together.

"We'd all have black polo-neck sweaters and dark suits and the same haircut, so we did look a bit like a four-headed monster." -Paul The Beatles Anthology ...

[1776Forever]

13. Say Say Say by Paul McCartney and Michael Jackson - What more needs said?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLEhh_XpJ-0

...........

Paul has been a genius throughout his life! I bow to his majesty and brilliance!

Love you Paul! And loved Michael in this video too, blessings!

:loveya:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. Ringo was the real talent behind the group.

Just look at how he went and formed the Foo Fighters after John shot himself.

[H2O Man]

26. Recommended.

Thanks, Paul!

[MzNov]

32. Love you forever and forever

:kick:

[dancingme]

35. He's also a VERY nice man

according to just about everyone who has ever met him. Gracious and kind and puts people at ease.

[lib_wit_it]

37. Macca's the Man! He and John each have their own unique genius. George was overshadowed by them for

most of the Beatles time, but who wouldn't pale in comparison to LenMac? Ringo's drumming was damn good and perfect for the Beatles, though what he's done since then hasn't thrilled me.

I fell in love with the Beatles at 8 years old in '64 and they've been the soundtrack to my life. Four of my nieces, from 8 to 18, are crazy about them, as well. The oldest is madly in love with Macca and the 15-year old with George. Now my sisters are rediscovering the Beatles through their daughters.

It's such a joy.

[autorank]

38. Thank you Paul k*r

The truth hurts but so what, it's about time someone at Paul's level just said it.

Thanks for the thread.