So who changed....Paul....or US ?

[2 of 3]

I think it's safe to say, that Paul's music as a Beatle and After the Beatles, is looked upon differently.  It's probably also safe to say...that Paul hasn't written a "classic" song since....wow.....Maybe I'm Amazed?  And by classic I mean....it just has that feel to it. Band on the Run is thought of that way I guess. But my question.....who changed?  Paul's music?...or the way we think about his music? I have mentioned this before on another post...but.....have you noticed how many songs Paul produced after the Beatles, where he seemed to always have Linda's backing vocals as an answer to his main vocal? It was like he consciously wrote songs that gave her something to do. I'll admit...the thing I disliked most about Wings was the backing vocals. Not because I didn't like Linda....but because John and George were so insanely good at at. Anyone would suffer in comparison. To me, only Elvis Costello sounded like he belonged there. So, the question is....are his songs just as good? Would Silly Love Songs, if it were a Beatle tune be thought of the same as O bla de O bla Da? You never hear anybody say...oh the Beatles....Ob la de oh bla da, the same way you hear people say...Paul McCartney...Silly love Songs
 

[Derek]

I'm sure the same can be said of John and George's solo career. Ringo is somewhat of another matter altogether i can't really pin down, because he seemed to have accidently became a bit "novelty" in his solo career.

[2 of 3]

That's true....John George and Ringo only really had One song that sounded like a classic too. Imagine, My Sweet Lord and It Don't Come Easy....interesting that George wrote 2 of them though. 

[Kylenz]

That's a really interesting point about 'Silly Love Songs' - Linda's backing vocals in that song stick out like a sore thumb - imagine if it was a Beatles track with John and George, the song would indeed be transformed! I liked the 80s version that he did on the Broadstreet LP - quite funky. There's a bass solo that reminds me a little bit of the one in Paul Simon's 'You Can Call Me Al' (well not the same at all, but similar vibe).

To me, the solo Fabs had more than 1 classic each. Everyone knows Mull of Kintyre (it held the record at the time for longest stay at #1 in the charts), everyone knows Band on the Run and Jet.. and everyone in the Hyde Park crowd knew the words to 'Say Say Say' before the Macca concert (a remix version was playing over the PA before the concert) so I would argue that Say Say Say is also a classic (yes I know the Beatle purists would be aghast at the thought of it!).

John had Imagine, but there's Power To The People and also Jealous Guy (Roxy Music's version is the one that made it a classic, but John did write it). And then you have the 'cult classics' like Working Class Hero - anyone that knows the song will recognise it as a classic even though it was never released as a single or reached wide mainstream acclaim).

With George, I would put 'All Those Years Ago' in the classics bracket, along with his singles with the Wilburys (Handle With Care, End of the Line, Heading For The Light), as they would otherwise have been George recordings. And 'Got My Mind Set On You' is also a classic, even though George didn't write it. John's 'Stand By Me' could be thought of in the same light - to a many people, it is the definitive recorded version!

But coming back to Paul and 'who changed', perhaps it's a case of Paul resting on his laurels.. and good on him, he deserves it! :) He doesn't need to prove anything to anybody anymore. The cool thing is that he's still capable of writing really good music. And some songs still fit the 'classic category' for me - though to another person they will vehemently disagree. Songs like 'At The Mercy', 'Too Much Rain', Mr Bellamy', 'Feet in the Clouds', 'Friends To Go', 'Promise To You Girl, 'Fine Line'.. will still be just as great in 20/30 years time!

[2 of 3]

I agree with the fact that what I call " a classic" is not going to be the same as anybody else.  Yeah, Mull is a great tune...you're right....too bad it was never released in the USA though. It went to Number One in Canada, and US radio played the flip side..which went nowhere. That happens a lot though. Crowded House's Better Be Home Soon went to Number One too and was never released as a single in the USA. I find that really odd considering how much the US and Canada are alike. Also...you'd have to argue pretty strenuously with Me to call Say Say Say  a classic....but I've got 20 years on you...so...our tastes are definitely going to be different.  Maybe that is the difference. Maybe it's people in my age group...who grew up with the Beatles, who thinks his solo stuff is....not up to snuff. Someone in your age group, who heard the solo/Wings stuff in their formative years....has a whole different way of looking at it? Though...it seems we agree on the Linda slant. 

[Greg]

I don't know.  That question is so perplexing to me that I've come up with I Don't Know.

I am 49, so that's where I'm viewing things from.  I can look at R.E.M firsthand and see what happened more closely than The Beatles.  I just saw that eventually they didn't write the classic tunes as in Reckoning, LRP, etc.  I guess R.E.M. couldn't just keep writing Seven Chinese Brothers forever; they had to change.  Eventually I just didn't like their newer stuff.  They changed; I didn't.  Interesting.

So anyway...Paul's music changed.  I think it is not as good, but it changed.

This whole thing also makes me think about who made a great album when they were over 30.  Empty Glass comes to mind.  Band on the Run.  Bravery, Repetition, and Noise.  I call Tug of War great, but it just might be the window from which I look at that album.

[2 of 3]

This whole thing also makes me think about who made a great album when they were over 30.

That's another good point. It's especially true with women artists....as soon as they have children....the music changes....and rightly so I guess...priorities and everything. But again, it would be interesting to compile a list of HIT albums by people over 30. I'm sure there are lots. It is kind of crazy to think that Paul was 27 when the Beatles broke up. Or was that George?...but you get my drift. 

[mervap]

This whole thing also makes me think about who made a great album when they were over 30.  Empty Glass comes to mind.

Wasn't the Who.....just Pete! 

Glad you mentioned "Empty Glass"...it's one of my absolute faves. On the question of Macca's music, I'd cop out and say we all changed. I think around 1975 or so, Macca started to chase hits...I think it changed the way he wrote a little, plus it used up some of the cred he got from "BOTR". Now, there really isn't a "Top 40" as we used to know it, so I'd guess Paul's day as a hitmaker are over. I think he must realize this and it might be why his newer stuff seems to take a few more chances. Add to that the fact that there's no radio outlet for his music anymore...they play the heck out of about ten of his solo songs and might spin his new songs once. Nobody on the radio wants new songs by classic artists, it seems.

[Greg]

Well reading the new posts really has me thinking but no time to write much now.

One thing is that I think of how different Paul's solo career could have been.  He could have had help from the others had they been on better terms.

I think of how Fleetwood Mac had those great singers to back up each other.  Paul really didn't have that.  I like Linda and her singing, but I would have chosen someone else to sing on that stuff. 

George Martin said it best for me when he said that Paul needed someone to tell him when songs weren't good enough.  I'm just trying to bring up some points to ponder.  Let it be known that I played all that solo stuff endlessly when it came out and appreciated every note.  I love Wildlife and London Town...all of it.

When Paul did Off the Ground I thought, "What the heck is he doing?"  I was a little older then, so that might be why I didn't like it.  This topic is just such an interesting concept.  I think you could do a Master's thesis or dissertation on this topic.  I really do.

What is the dynamic between an artist and a dedicated fan as they each grow older?  That's kind of the issue that 2 has raised with his orig post.  It's an absolutely fascinating topic.

(I've spent two days and seven hours logged in to LTB.  I'm calling that a good thing.)

[Kylenz]

This whole thing also makes me think about who made a great album when they were over 30. 

Metallica's 'Death Magnetic' was well-received, and those guys are in their late 40s. It is indeed a pretty good album. Eminem, while beginning to wane, is still reasonably successful and he is pushing 40. But music is a young person's game.. most of my favourite albums from all over the years, are from people who were only in their early 20s at the time. For example, Revolver by The Beatles, The Fame by Lady Gaga, Eli and the 13th Confession by Laura Nyro, Nevermind by Nirvana, Black Holes & Revelations by Muse - no matter who you pick.. these people were barely 20 years of age.

But it still is possible to pump out good albums no matter how old you are. Macca's next album will show that!   

[Paperback Writer]

Great discussion!!!

Some random thoughts on the subject - yes the great artists - can and have done some of their classics, post age 30, Paul Simon, Neil Young, Bob Dylan, all come to mind. But you all are right, something unique about the artist and their work happens in the teens and 20's that is mostly unsurpassed later in life.

We are often a product of our times and associated experiences, so for people in my age group, Beatle Paul is un-reachable by Wing-Paul, solo Paul recordings.  BUT for younger people, living in real time, hearing Paul 1st as a Wings or solo, their Paul experience overshadows their later hearings of Paul as a Beatle, in many cases.

My belief is that the Beatles, individually, and especially collectively, are so great, that Paul's great compositions and recording/performing skills COUPLED with the greatness of the Beatles is unbeatable.

Listening to solo Paul on bootleg Beatles, White Album acoustic rehearsals, much of the Anthology recordings, it is clear he is doing great songs and is a great performer - BUT - the same Paul songs , in their final Beatle versions , far surpasses them.

I do agree, a whole lot of Paul's post Beatle songs are great.  BUT, I believe, if these same songs, were able to be performed in front of the Beatles by Paul, given imput and performing guidance and playing by John, George and Ringo, they would be better. 

The fair Paul song would be a good Beatle song, the good Paul song would be transformed into the great Beatle song, the great Paul song would be a Beatle classic - just like when they actually did that in the 60's.

I often drool when listening to great Macca recordings like Uncle Albert and Coming Up - and putting my Beatle Ears on and hearing them as Beatle songs, uh make that Beatle Classics!

[Greg]

I do agree, a whole lot of Paul's post Beatle songs are great.  BUT, I believe, if these same songs, were able to be performed in front of the Beatles by Paul, given imput and performing guidance and playing by John, George and Ringo, they would be better. 

Yep.

...and I am thinking this at the moment.  If Paul wasn't ever in The Beatles I would look at him as a 70's icon who was one of the most (wait while I google szcitzophrenic) ...schizophrenic artists I've ever heard.  With no Beatle legacy I'd be thinking that this guy can sing like I've never heard anyone sing.  He's kind of like Elton John-ish yet he's not.  He's part Billy Joel, he's part this and part that, he's quite an eclectic guy.  I would end up, I think, appreciating his unique songwriting talents. 

Of course he prob doesn't release Wildlife or McCartney if he wasn't an ex-Beatle.

..and finally.  Yes, Graceland was a great over-30 album.