Beatle Paul vs Solo Paul

[Steve-o]

I believe my opinion to be 90% or more fact.
I've heard SLS, what's so great about that Bass?.

Rubbish..it's iconic. 90% fact? CHOKE!!!!

[chris]

I believe my opinion to be 90% or more fact.

does that imply that 10% of what you say is made up crap?

[EddieV]

It's dissapointing his bass playing never got better after the Beatles, in fact, he's become much more restrained, and some might say, a worse player?

He hasn´t become a better bassplayer, don´t think so. In the Beatles most of the time his job was to the bass, but solo he must play bass, acoutic and electric guitar, piano and sometimes even the drums.

Listen to Run Devil Run he can still play the bass (or haven´t you got that). What about on C&C his bassplaying can´t be better.

[ANGRY]

the only 90% fact is you're full of crocodile pee, or something...get outta the outback and into the real world, laz...the sun is baking what few atoms you call brain cells into puree de koala guano...

i'm beginning to believe you're minis twin brother...and you're the EVIL one !

[Cologne girl]

i'm beginning to believe you're minis twin brother...and you're the EVIL one !

Don't think so - Mini at least likes JL - who do you like, Laz??

[Lazarus_2]

There are several songs in his Solo Career that i believe the Beatles would have made better(sometimes only slightly, but some times enough to compare to the best of the Beatles catalogue)

some of these songs(i might name one)

is Through Our Love off Pipes Of Peace, here is a song that feels Let It Be-ish, and arguably the Beatles could've made just enough better than McCartney's version to make it a big hit(like LIB).

A Certain Softness, sounds like the quality of writing Paul left with his Beatles days, but has suprisingly crawled to the surface! It just would have been cool to hear the Beatles play this song.

"Somedays", this just would've been better had Young-Paul recorded it while he was in the Beatles... With a George Martin orchestration when he was in his prime. It would have been shorter if recorded under the Beatles moniker as well, which would have made it better.
In most-cases, when there aren't enough lyrics to go around, a shorter track time will help indefinetely.

"Great Day", again Beatle Paul would have made a better job of it, with the help of 60's production on the White Album... Anyone who disagrees is a Communist!

"Calico Skies", almost same as my opinion of Great Day, except it dont particularly need White Album production/feel, regular Beatle Paul feel is okay.

I'd like to get people's opinions on what i've said here(their real opinions) and not their Blind devotion to Paul, ignoring all his faults as always.

[chris]

Well, Laz, my old buddy, I respectfully disagree with some of what you have to say. I think Great Day should be left alone. It has an early Wings feel to it, that, for nostalgia's sake, shouldn't be touched. I also think Somedays would be better off left alone. The production values alone are very Beatlesque, perhaps purposely so, seeing that its done by George Martin himself. I also don't think the song is too long. My interpretation of that song has a bit of bittersweet sadness that went away from a younger Paul's usual (and eternal) optimism.

However, given a little bit of thought, the song Through our Love, while a classic Paul ballad, might have gained something from the old band. I would not classify it anywhere near the iconic status if a Let it Be though.

One cannot dispute that Paul has had his share of brilliant song writing moments during his solo career. He has even mentioned to release entire albums the rank up there with anything has ever done. But I believe that much of Paul's best writing came when he was with the Beatles. And lets face it, it is indisputable that the Beatles were his finest band. Of course there are some solo songs that would benefit from a a george riff here or a John line there. But recognising that the Beatles are indeed not together anymore, one must appreciate what one has. Art, after all, is certainly subjective.

[Cologne girl]

I'd like to get people's opinions on what i've said here(their real opinions) and not their Blind devotion to Paul, ignoring all his faults as always.

I don't think you're quite fair or even right here, Laz - I haven't seen anyone guilty of that here yet. I can't think of anyone who hasn't, at some point, made some critical comment of some sort. Even the craziest and most addicetd "Macca-junkies", as Dingle called us (loved that one, Dr. D), have found fault with their idol at some point, which is only natural, and that's precisely one of things that makes this place cool for me.

[chris]

Have to agree with CG here. There are plenty of threads, such as...1 album you would keep, and 1 you would leave behind...that suggest that they are all not masterpieces. Not one of us, I think, would suggest that solo Paul, or even the Beatles for that matter, are squeaky clean perfect. Hindsight allows us to look back and always say...gee, I would have changed that.

[Lazarus_2]

It's simple, in the Beatles songs(the better ones) you can usually pick out 3 or more things that you think are absolutely brilliant when combined with the rest of the song.
Paul's solo work, at best probably has "the rest of the song" and fails to give 3 or more things that are brilliant in relation to the rest of the song.

At best he can give 1-2,
and that's at his best.

Beatles at best gave 5-10 or more things you'd thought were brilliant that surround the song.