Topic of Discussion: Paul McCartney's Wings really kinda sucked.

[Darth_Kitten]

:evilgrin:

[azmouse]

1. Apart from his time with the Beatles,

everything McCartney's done has sucked!

What's to discuss? :shrug:

[Darth_Kitten]

2. Maybe I'm Amazed was nice.....

I liked that, and must admit I like "Jet" as well.

[Hissyspit]

4. "Girl's School" was nice and sleazy.

[azmouse]

7. But, but... What about Uncle Albert???

Now THAT sucked... a lot!!

[Hissyspit]

3. Do this. Go through the Beatles catalog listening to ONLY the songs

that are known to be McCartney's songs chiefly.

That work doesn't stand up all that well, either. I think the Beatles stuff is overrated and a lot (not all definitely) of the Wings stuff is underrated.

[azmouse]

6. I've found that taste in music is very much up to the individual.

None of the Beatles was much on their own, IMHO, but together I think they made magic!!

[Darth_Kitten]

9. Interesting......

I won't argue. :D

[Whoa_Nelly]

10. Leave my fab Four alone!!!

[Hissyspit]

11. Lennon over McCartney, anyday. But I like "Ram" a lot.

Actually I love the Beatles, but it was an interesting experiment that I tried once and I was surprised by the result. So much of McCartney's was just syrup by itself - good syrup, but still. It benefited much from the contrast with Lennon. And they did better together, often.

[jpgray]

14. I disagree

McCartney's stuff does not come close to topping Lennon's as far as peaks, but he's -way- more consistent.

[last_texas_dem]

22. I disagree

Lennon definitely had the edge with the earlier material; for example, the A Hard Day's Night albums is almost all his in terms of writing the majority of the songs. But McCartney was behind the bulk of the later material, which is the stuff the majority of people are the most enthusiastic about. Albums like Revolver and Sgt. Pepper and especially Abbey Road (I'm thinking of the "suite" on side two) are hard to even imagine without McCartney's contributions. Personally, I tend to like more of Lennon's songs with the Beatles than McCartney's (although I prefer McCartney's solo career pretty substantially over Lennon's) but I think an objective comparison (if that's even possible) would show them to be pretty even in terms of their Beatles contributions.

[jpgray]

12. Nah. "Dear Boy" and "Too Many People" off Ram are fine by me

If some of his solo stuff was released by Brian Wilson or whomever it would've been praised to the skies--but people had and have issues with McCartney.

[GalleryGod]

16. Such a black & white condemnation

you MUST be a verified and published "expert".:silly:

[Kire]

5. I disagree

There's not much to discuss, eye of the beholder and all.

Cheers

[Nickster]

8. GASP!!!!! n/t

[Archae]

13. No way!

Steve Miller Band sucks!

Wings did many good tunes, including "Live And Let Die."

[GalleryGod]

15. No they didn't.

Unless you're close to 50 you never saw them live; that's where they rocked. McCartney's band(s) always sounded better live,in and of itself is a strange and Ironic twist.
:smoke:

[ComerPerro]

18. I heard that no one could really hear the Beatles at their shows anyway

[chaska]

17. Kinda????

[mvd]

19. I love Wings

Not as much as The Beatles, but it seemed a natural progression for Paul. Now, Paul's latest CD I couldn't get into.

[5thGenDemocrat]

20. "Venus and Mars Rock Show" is one of my favorite songs ever

Right -- it's fluffy, mindless Top 40 pop, but all music doesn't have to have a "meaning." Though Wings never did and never will have the impact on music that the Beatles did (having Lennon and Harrison contribute songs as well played a big part in that), I can name 50 bands that suck a whole lot worse than Wings did.
John
For example, I've never understood the worship Eric Clapton or the Doors get, either. But I like the Grateful Dead, so what do I know?

[last_texas_dem]

21. I like 'em

I actually think they're quite underrated due to their established reputation of being hated by the critics. Wild Life is a cool, stripped-down pop album that sounds like not much of anything else going on in the early seventies (sorta like McCartney's debut, except played by a band), Venus and Mars is overall a lot of fun, despite a little filler, and Band on the Run is a masterpiece, IMHO. In fact, I don't think Wings ever recorded a bad album. McCartney's solo career is a little spottier, but I agree with the poster above who commented on his consistency. In terms of overall output of great material, none of the other Beatles' solo careers can begin to compare to Paul's. (But I love all of them anyway...)