Is Paul McCartney deserving of our respect?

[Screaming Lord Byron]

I've been thinking a lot about The Beatles and their lives after the split, since our little flurry of post-Beatles posts last week, and it strikes me that a lot of people (not just on DU, but in the world at large) have a problem with Paul McCartney.
I thought I'd try and work through how I feel about Paul which led to how I felt about John and George (sorry, Ringo). Here, in Paul we have a guy who could write a song as extraordinarily touching as 'Maybe I'm Amazed' alongside something as trite as 'The Frog Chorus', who could release a (little heard) song as explicitly political as 'Give Ireland Back To The Irish' and then write about his trusty Land Rover ('Helen Wheels'). I mean, this is a guy who actually wrote a song defending his right to write Silly Love Songs.
That's when it struck me what the problem with McCartney's output is, its lack of emotional content, often a lack of depth. Simply put, McCartney almost never puts his emotional self on the line. To McCartney, unlike Lennon, his work is 'just' songs. Whereas John threw everything into his songs ('Mother', 'God', 'Isolation' and the rest of the Plastic Ono Band LP), McCartney is reserved. His songs are stories, conceits, whereas Lennon's songs are in the blues tradition of emotional catharsis.
This is not to say McCartney's songs are rubbish, in fact the opposite is often true. Paul McCartney has written some of the greatest pop songs ever, but that's the crucial distinction, 'pop songs', not 'rock songs'. Pop songs are by their nature ephemeral and lack emotional content, dealing with matters outwith the self, whereas Rock songs are often laden with meaning and internal quests.
I think that's the distinction between Paul and John's output. McCartney is clearly technically the better writer, but he could never come close to connecting with his audience in the way John did. So, how you feel about them depends on what you want to hear. Would you rather here a fantastically constructed, dynamic 45 like 'Jet' which on an emotional level says nothing, or would you rather hear the simplistic but massively effective 'Working Class Hero'?
Essentially, I think the difference between John and Paul is the difference between Pop and Rock. They're both equally effective, but how you react to them depends on what you're looking for.
I think that we are being unfair to Paul in this. I think Paul should be viewed alongside the likes of Cole Porter or the Holland-Dozier-Holland team as a master-craftman of brilliant disposable three-minute art, while John has to be put alongside the likes of Jim Morrison, Robert Johnson, John Coltrane or Nick Drake, people for whom art and self could never be seperated, people who were their art.
I think to compare John and Paul does neither the justice they so richly deserve.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

1. Respect him for what he is.

You put your finger on the distinction, McCartney had a great ear for melody and really knew how to craft a hook-filled pop song. Lennon was an artist. That's why they were such a good songwriting team (yes, I know most of the songs weren't really team efforts, but...)

[Screaming Lord Byron]

2. Oh yeah. I hope it came across that I'm a big fan of both.

[fudge stripe cookays]

3. You have a point.

I grew up with a much older brother who loved the Beatles, and had me singing Rocky Raccoon and Norwegian Wood when I was 4.

As a little girl, my favorites were always Paul songs, since they were poppy and bouncy and made me happy.

As I grew older and the whole 80s neo-psychedelia era hit, I become much more of a John person. My boyfriend at the time was actually really critical of Paul McCartney. He couldn't stand him. And that anti-Paul attitude stuck with me for awhile.

Until reprehensor talked me into seeing Sir Paul live about 2 years ago for the first time. And the man can definitely put on a show. I think he is definitely a master craftsman of catchy pop tunes, and I can respect him for that. I still love "My Love" as a ballad, especially after hearing him dedicate it to the "Lovely Linda."

And until I heard "Jet" and "Live and Let Die" live, I don't think I'd really appreciated them before.

[sir_captain]

4. You make some good points

I think John and George both have the edge in terms of emotional content. McCartney, in my opinon, is the greatest pop writer of all time.

On the other hand, I think that "Yesterday" and "Here, There, and Everywhere" have a little more depth than Paul is usually given credit for.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

6. George is my favourite Beatle, primarily for the reason

that he could combine John's depth with Paul's melodic sensibilities, at least for a while between 1968 and 1971.

[stinkeefresh]

28. plus he's the funniest.

by far.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

30. And he was responsible for these films getting made....

Little Malcolm and his Struggle Against the Eunuchs
All You Need Is Cash
The Life of Brian
The Long Good Friday
Time Bandits
Monty Python At The Hollywood Bowl
The Missionary
A Private Function
Shanghai Surprise!
Mona Lisa
WITHNAIL AND I
How To Get Ahead In Advertising
Nuns on the Run

[sir_captain]

32. Don't forget

A Fish Called Wanda!

[Screaming Lord Byron]

35. Was it not enough for him to be a Beatle?

The guy's track record as an Executive Producer ranks with the greats.

[sir_captain]

38. Absolutely

the guy was a real visionary. I really enjoyed the Monty Python performance at his tribute concert, and I'm sure he would have too.

[sir_captain]

34. Yeah, he's my favorite too

"Something" and "Here Comes the Sun" are such killer songs

[meegbear]

5. Ever hear "Paul McCartney Massacre"

by the Swinging Erudites? Hilarious!

Starts with:

Some people say they've had enough of Paul McCartney
I look around me and I see it ins't so
So people wanna rid the world of Paul McCartney
And what wrong with that?

Can't find the rest of the lyrics, but it's a hoot.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

7. Genius, man, genius!

[jdsmith]

8. Lyric content of "rock"

But what is "rock" supposed to be about? I think you are suggesting that the politics or spirituality of John & George help define them as "rock" when I'd argue instead that high moral seriousness is more an indication of a post-Dylan strain of the stuff, an adultness that CAN be rock's purpose but needn't be.

That is, I'd say that writing a song about your Land Rover is firmly in the mainline tradition of r&r.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

11. Yeah, the definition between 'Rock' and 'Rock and Roll' is tricky.

I'd call Paul 'Rock and Roll' but not 'Rock' while George and John were both 'Rock', although both certainly were also 'Rock and Roll'.
I guess I'm defining 'Rock' as a literate post-Dylan seriousness that viewed itself as more than 'merely' music. 'Rock' considers itself art. Bono made a good quote about the difference between 'Rock' and 'Pop', but I'll be damned if I can find it.

[bloodyjack]

9. nice post

and I have to agree. John had more of a penchant for rock, and it consumed him completely, while Paul had more of a penchant for SONG-WRITING which allowed him to maintain an emotional distance between the singer and the song. Not to say that John wasn't a great songwriter, but craftsmanship WAS Paul's strong suit.

[Whitacre D_WI]

10. Paul was dubbing Ringo's drumming, John was dubbing Ringo's humming.

"Hey Paul, you asshole, DUB THIS!"

[Screaming Lord Byron]

13. Paul said (and I quote)

"Ringo wasn't the best drummer in the world, he wasn't even the best drummer in The Beatles"
I'd like to think he was joking there.

[Whitacre D_WI]

15. Ringo is the most unfairly-maligned drummer in rock history.

Listen to "Ticket to Ride" and tell me that motherfucker was a bad drummer.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

22. Brilliant feel and a great ability to experiment.

People totally dismiss Ringo. I don't like his solo stuff, but I would never criticise his drumming, on his day, he was great.

[stinkeefresh]

27. Ringo wrote some of rock's most perfect drum parts

even if he couldn't always play them.

[Noon_Blue_Apples]

12. MBV!!! sorry, off track post (no jacking going on)

Agree re you thoughts of PM.

I went to university (Laurier) from 89-94 and imho they were amazing years in rock history - particularly the continuation of 'rock' progression in the UK vs. the take-over of R&B/hip hop in the US. Presently i'm trying to familiarize dj's at 'classic rock' Q107 (Toronto)on this continuation (ie: any track from the self titled LA's cd is ideal for the format).

That MBV album was a shoegazing wet dream of the highest order. At least they gave up and didn't get to the 'get your rock's off' sell-out attempt ala Primal Scream.

Others on my list from that era:

Lush
Ride
Pulp
The Charlatans (still my favorite group - Tell'n Stories #1)
Stone Roses
Adorable
Pale Saints
Chapter House (mesmerized)
Happy Mondays
Flowered Up
New Fast Automatic Daffodils


Props and Peace

Bill

[Screaming Lord Byron]

19. Ride's first disc 'Nowhere' is fantastic.

Pulp, enough said, brilliant band.
The Charlatans really deserve far greater success than they currently do, they manage to be both a fantastic singles act, and, since the third LP, a brilliant albums act.
Chapterhouse, two great albums
Roses and Mondays - equally enough said.
I'd add 18 Wheeler, The Boo Radleys' 'Everything's Alright Forever' 'Giant Steps' and 'C'mon Kids', the first three House of Love albums, and a bunch of other bands I've currently forgotten.

[Noon_Blue_Apples]

31. Yes, forgot the Boo Rad's- Giant Steps was fab (n/t)

.

[Beware the Beast Man]

14. As Songrwiters..

Lennon & McCartney checked and balanced each other, whether they wrote together or separately. Lennon was better at conveying emotions in song and McCartney knew it. McCartney was the better musician and Lennon knew it. As solo artists, Paul's songs often lacked a certain depth, while most of John's songs focused raw emotion rather than melody. It really was the sum of all the parts that made the Beatles such formidable artists.
Just one guy's opinion...anyone else?

[musiclawyer]

16. You are so right

I've thought the same thing for a long time. Never put it as eloquently as you. I think Ray Davies is a better song writer (pop/rock) than both Paul an John. Sorry. Look back and compare their entire catalogues. But that's for another thread.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

21. Davies is a genius, that's pretty clear.

[ForrestGump]

17. Listen to what the dude sang

He's one of the best live performers ever, probably topping any of the other Beatles in their solo turns (I've not actually been present at the live shows of any of the other ex-Beatles but comparing filmed shows and audio records gives some basis for comparison). He also wrote some of the Beatles' best stuff, many of which went far beyond the boundaries that he's been too widely characterized as being limited by. He was 'avant garde' before John, not that I particularly care about that (if only because John's magical avante-garde tour resulted in some truly dire output).

Sure, in his solo career he was and still is hit and miss, but so were the others. John, the one who tends to be lionized beyond his reality by cooler- and hipper-than-thou pundits, turned out some absolute crap. Even some of his better stuff was pretty much wallowing in self-pity and various other manifestations of egocentrism...if Paul's material (and, for that matter, interviews and other public utterances) sometimes lacked 'depth' or personal revelation, John's sometimes had an excess of those same qualities.

They both gave us some great music, some of the best of the 20th Century, whether together or apart. "Imagine" may be intellectually deeper than "That Would Be Something," granted, but they're both great songs. Paul definitely deserves more respect than some give him, and more credit for what he really did with the Beatles. And, like I said, his abilities as a live performer command a great deal of respect from anyone who appreciates showmanship and sheer energy.

[Squeech]

18. The problem I have with late McCartney

is that the melodies aren't good enough to be Beatles melodies. Some of them are even more vapid than the words-- and in the case of, say, "Silly Love Songs" that's *really* saying something. Even songs that stand out in Paul's post-Beatle repertoire (e.g. "Jet") aren't very tuneful-- 75% of the verse is the same note.

I lean toward the conventional wisdom that John kept Paul on his toes in terms of content, both melodically and lyrically, whereas Paul helped polish and package John's rawer ideas. When they were no longer working together and editing each other on a regular basis, we got John's stark forthrightness (it just occurred to me that the reason for Neil Young's current stature may be that we expect him to fill John's shoes) and Paul's ever-increasing percentage of treacle.

But there's a lot to be said for zeitgeist too. Paul wrote "Eleanor Rigby" and "Fixing a Hole" while Brian Wilson was writing "Caroline No" and "Good Vibrations." By the time of "Silly Love Songs," the standards of Top 40 were much lower-- compare Paul's "Jet" to, say, Steve Miller's "Jet Airliner."

[demnan]

20. Excellent Post

I'm going to disagree here ever so slightly. I think that many pop writers did write from their own emotions, at least the good ones did. You mention Cole Porter and I think he's a fair example. Gershwin/Gershwin is another. I think great music requires a little of both the emotional honesty and a willinging to step away from it.

The reason I think good music requires you to have the ability to step away from your personal emotions is based on observations of the really great songs, say, "the Boxer", by Paul Simon, or let's choose a Beatles one, (a Paul one) "Hey Jude".

Both these songs were great in completely different ways. The Boxer tells a story that is compelling and emotionally there, although it isn't, obviously Paul Simon's story. The melody line is simple and folksy with just a little guitar to start. Hey Jude, lyrically is advice to a friend, again I don't think it was written from a personal perspective, but it might have been. It also starts simply with rythmic piano then it builds into a rock anthem. Both songs work because they incorporate both the emotional honesty and the ability to stand back from the artist and just be.

What Paul seemed to lack is an emotional honesty - what John lacked was the ability to step away from his emotional honesty. Together they were perfect - they completed each other in a way that few pop or rock song writers ever could or would.

[Beware the Beast Man]

23. well put, demnan

You basically added to what I was trying to say in my earlier post. Not to say that Paul was cold & unfeeling & john couldn't write a hook. I just finished listening to "Because" which is one of the most beautiful pieces John ever wrote, musically.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

24. Great Post.

What are the odds of three extraordinary songwriters even knowing each other let alone working together? Paul was able to focus John, and John was able to challenge Paul to avoid playing safe. George, no doubt watched from the sidelines and thought 'Just you wait!'

[tigerbeat]

33. the beatles are evidence of a divine power

i always hold up the beatles very existence as my one reason i cannot commit to being a complete and total athiest. the fact that these three attractive, charasmatic men who also happened to be three of the best singer/songwriters of their generation (with davis, dylan and townshend being contenders for that title as well) would even exist in the same nation much less KNOW each other, much less get thrown together into the greatest pop/rock band in history is.....well....mind boggling. and evidence that someone might be looking out for us.

as to defending paul.....i have no problem with the man except for his personality in older age. "mccartney", "ram", "band on the run", "standing stone" and "flaming pie" i think are all immensely listenable albums. yes, he doesn't have the emotional range or depth of lennon....but honestly i stopped comparing the two men's solo output a long time ago and tried to accept them for what they were.

in my mind, after the beatles split up, it's like comparing burt bacharach and dylan.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

36. The divine aspect occured to me too.

What would the actual odds for such an occurence be? It's mind boggling.

[catzies]

40. Clearly it was their karma. And ours too.

They *had* to "Be the Beatles."

That's why they had to bring the Eastern (Indian) influences of music and religion to the West. They were avatars. We *had* to have them (the Beatles). :)

Jai guru deva
OM

Nothin's gonna change my world.

[stinkeefresh]

25. yup. This is true.

I remember asking my mom why the Beatle broke up and her answer was "too much talent for one band". I think that's a lot better than the Yoko answer, and I think we can agree that it is a rather stunning level of quality. Especially when you consider that they basically averaged an album every six months. Here's a few thoughts/opinions I'd like to share:

Plastic Ono Band is the best post-Beatle album by any Beatle alum.

Yellow Submarine is the best Beatles album you probably don't own. It may only be a third of an album, really, but its where J&P hid the George songs that they were afraid of. It doesn't get much better than "It's All Too Much".

My brother invented an album re-shuffle that will really put the point on the difference between Paul and John & George. Here's the recipe:

Take Revolver, put all the Paul songs on side one (in order) and all the John or George songs on side two (in order). It's called "Devolver" and its a really amazing way to examine the differences at perhaps the height of those differences. (John and George had dropped acid but Paul had not yet during this album.)

Also- My Bloody Valentine - "loveless" is heaven on earth. Glad you're plugging it.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

29. I love 'Yellow Submarine' too.

'Only A Northern Song' and 'Hey Bulldog' (especially 'Hey Bulldog' are fantastic, dynamic tracks with a sonic edge the band rarely re-visited.
'Loveless' is in some small way an heir to that experimentalism.

[emulatorloo]

26. practically every song on "Driving Rain" is emotional and personal

and you can find songs on every one of his solo cds that lays it on the line

Are they raw and direct like JL's? sometimes, but other times he wraps things in poetry and imagery.

As to Jet, to me it is one of the most poetic depictions of lost love I've ever heard (rich girl rejects boy for her conservative family) and it ROCKS!

here are some samples from the first 8.

McCartney - Junk, Maybe I'm Amazed. Kreen-Akrore (for goodness sake, can't get more personal than that)

Ram - Three Legs, Dear Boy

Wild Life - Some People Never Know. Dear Friend

Red Rose Speedway - Little lamb dragonfly, one more kiss

BOTR - Let Me Roll It, Mrs Vanderbelt

London Town - I've had enough

Venus and Mars - Letting Go, Treat her gently

London Town - I've had enough

[Screaming Lord Byron]

39. Good list. I'm not too familiar with 'Driving Rain', so I can't comment.

I think my point holds up generally, though. I'm not familiar with any of Paul's songs that would be as soul-searing as John's Plastic Ono Band LP. There may well be one, but I can't think of it. I think he has displayed more openness of late, but I see it as a matter of his personal nature to be oblique about personal issues. John's lyrics were internally directed, whereas Paul's, even when they were dealing were emotional issues were left open and not-personally specific in the way John's were.

[emulatorloo]

41. Your point does hold up generally, but the great thing about John and Paul

is they never fit the theories no matter how hard we try.

Paul writes ballads and John's a rocker? Helter Skelter/Julia
Paul is interested in Craft, John Direct Emotion? Why Don't We Do It In The Road/Happiness is a Warm Gun

ON Edit - get driving rain, you will enjoy it - got great reviews when it came out for a reason.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

42. Good point. I'll check out Driving Rain.

The true mark of a great songwriter is the ability to step out of the constrictions placed upon you.

[democratreformed]

37. I don't know about Paul but I watched a documentary on his wife

and SHE certainly has my respect and admiration.

P.S. That would be his new wife - although Linda was certainly a great lady as well.