Author Topic: Sir Paul  (Read 409 times)

811952

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2507
Sir Paul
« Reply #15 on: August 11, 2008, 03:13:57 PM »
There's a very good chance I wouldn't be playing bass if not for Paul, for better or for worse!  ;)
 
John

thumbsup

  • Guest
Sir Paul
« Reply #16 on: August 13, 2008, 08:06:13 PM »
The Beatles! Yea Yea Yea! John & Paul were definetly the stand outs. Ringo had some really cool chops! One of the coolest bass lines ever...come together. I was listening to a radio station that had an all Beatles day.The idiots played some Wings. The Beatles was great! Paul is great. But Wings is not even a close second  to what the band Beatles had.

jlpicard

  • club
  • Advanced Member
  • *
  • Posts: 416
Sir Paul
« Reply #17 on: August 17, 2008, 09:20:04 PM »
When any of the Paul bashers, cynics and experts out there achieve even a millionth of the success, or influence on the direction of the music world to the slightest degree.........or bring the amount of joy to world that Paul and the Beatles have, then be my guest and flap your pie holes all you want. Until then, pick up your bass and get a life.

dannobasso

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2038
    • BLAK29
Sir Paul
« Reply #18 on: August 18, 2008, 05:31:48 AM »
Well put. Show us your latest cd release and compare royalties with PM.

lbpesq

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10683
Sir Paul
« Reply #19 on: August 18, 2008, 09:29:19 AM »
Michael:
 
While I was not one the the Paul bashers above, your same argument could be made for Kenny G., Hanna Montana, or even Tiny Tim, all of whom have had more success in the music business than most of us.
 
Bill, tgo

hydrargyrum

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1242
Sir Paul
« Reply #20 on: August 18, 2008, 09:52:36 AM »
I guess I'm the standout here in as much as George is my favorite of the group.  John could write, but he also seemed to go out of his way to be intentionally strange (Yoko anyone?) and often hostile.  Paul could sing, but his songwriting is far too sugary sweet to my ears, especially post Beatles.  George always seemed to be pretty humble, his guitar playing was extremely solid (while not flashy), he sang well, and his post Beatles songwriting is the best in my opinion (All Things Must Pass, Traveling Wilburys), Granted, John did come up with at least one or two songs per album that still raise the gooseflesh, I just don't think he was as consistent.  Ringo, well, he was and is still Ringo.  No further explanation needed. In any event I think that next to the definition of synergy in the dictionary should be a picture of the Beatles.   The whole was definitely more than the sum of its parts.
 
(Message edited by hydrargyrum on August 18, 2008)

olieoliver

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2747
Sir Paul
« Reply #21 on: August 18, 2008, 10:06:27 AM »
Paul thinks he is God
John thought he was more important than God
George searched for God.  
And Ringo.....God Help Him.
 
OO
And I am a HUGE Beatles Fan.

jbybj

  • club
  • Advanced Member
  • *
  • Posts: 391
Sir Paul
« Reply #22 on: August 18, 2008, 03:52:55 PM »
As a 49 year old Beatles fan, I think the problem is that they were a hard act to follow. When I first heard that mandolin and Paul yammering on about how everybodies gonna dance around I just got depressed. But the Beatles, and even some solo stuff, (Ram) and Some Wings, (Let Me Roll It) to name a few still make my heart race.  
 
I also think, in hindsight, that many people judge him for marrying a Linda look-alike, without a prenup too!
 
I have found that for me, personally, it is easy to become judgementle, when you are better than everyone else........
 
Peace, James

thumbsup

  • Guest
Sir Paul
« Reply #23 on: August 18, 2008, 05:08:32 PM »
Post Beatles all the fab 4 were more sucessful than than most,even Ringo! Paul was the most successful post Beatles because he obviously still had the drive and he worked hard for it. But none could match the original.Not even Paul himself.Most of us who grew up with the Beatles related to them because of their ability to express most of our true feelings of the times through song.Thus we all feel we know them. It's hard to live up to ones image created by so many! The Beatles were possibly the most successful band ever!Success sponds controversy which it seeems we are having some. Does anyone really know Paul the man? You can not believe everything you read or see on the tube.

thumbsup

  • Guest
Sir Paul
« Reply #24 on: August 18, 2008, 05:17:58 PM »
James  ....I think Paul marrying without a prenup just goes to show his character.He must be a trusting ole soul! dont know if I could have that much character!

dnburgess

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 674
Sir Paul
« Reply #25 on: August 19, 2008, 02:54:18 AM »
The last two solo McCartney (Chaos & creation... and Memory almost full) albums are excellent and I recommend them to anyone who enjoys finely crafted music. The bass playing is, as you would expect, very tasteful and beautifully recorded and mixed.
 
They remind me a lot of 10CC - who most likely wouldn't have existed without the art rock foundations laid by The Beatles.

jacko

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4068
Sir Paul
« Reply #26 on: August 19, 2008, 03:15:47 AM »
I have to agree with David here. It's true that almost every album ever made (by anyone) has some filler and it's unfortunate that paul chose the filler to release as the single from 'memory..' as the rest of the album is excellent.  
I'm also going to stick up my hand and say I really like alot of the wings era material - Band on the Run (IMHO) is one of those rare albums with NO filler.
 
As for Pre-nups, He's British and Pre-nuptual agreements aren't so prevalent over here so maybe it never occured to him.
 
Graeme

cozmik_cowboy

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7341
Sir Paul
« Reply #27 on: August 19, 2008, 08:55:09 AM »
Let me clarify that my earlier assertion that Paul is the least of the Beatles starts with the fact that he was a freakin' Beatle - the least is in that context.  He's a great singer, a good player (the first bass line I ever noticed was Lady Madonna) and a skilled writer.  But he lacks George's virtuosity, John's soul, and Ringo's cool.  His pop sensibilities were an indispensable part of the Beatles magic - but, just as John tended to go too serious without Paul's influence, the end of the partnership freed Paul to make himself into a master craftsman of lightweight pop froth.  I will disagree with Steve that his greater post-Beatles success was due to more drive; I would argue that it's due to more mainstream sensibilities - and I don't count that as a plus (see Bill's above references to Mr. G & Ms. Montana).  While Paul's post-Beatles work weighs heavily against his Beatles legacy, it in no way negates it.  I love Beatle Paul; solo artist & bandleader Paul McCartney leaves me cold.
 
Peter
"Is not Hypnocracy no other than the aspiration to discover the meaning of Hypnocracy?  Have you heard the one about the yellow dog yet?"
St. Dilbert

"If I could explain it in prose, i wouldn't have had to write the song."
Robt. Hunter

bracheen

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1561
Sir Paul
« Reply #28 on: August 19, 2008, 09:46:42 AM »
While I like certain McCartney songs I wouldn't say that I'm a fan.  The same statement could apply to all of the Beatles solo work. That being said, the concert that I attended in Miami a year or so ago was one of the top shows I've ever attended.  The man played for three solid hours.  His band was tight and he hadn't lost a step.
 
Sam

jbybj

  • club
  • Advanced Member
  • *
  • Posts: 391
Sir Paul
« Reply #29 on: August 19, 2008, 08:20:56 PM »
+1 re: Band on the Run
 
and I too saw Paul a couple of years ago in Vegas. It was awesome, A highlight of my musical life. He played about 60% Beatles toons, 25% Wings, and 15% forgetable recent stuff.
 
James