Beatle Paul vs Solo Paul

Discussions related to Paul as a Beatle.

Moderator: Mike

Postby ANGRY » Sun Dec 04, 2005 3:37 am

fred, you did use the word 'phenominal', but then went on to imply that all his solo work would be much better w/john around....this is patently silly. Ram, BOTR, FP, AND C&C alone show he can do just fine with any outside help, as long as it pushes him to think. and let's not forget the recently released interview w/john...where he basically says they didn't work together that much ( b.s., if you ask me) but it would, if true, put the lie to your whole argument. i.e.: paul needs john to be great. in addition, talmut, i don't think either i or fred saw this dispute as a paul vs john thing, but rather, how much did either need each other. that's very different. james had that one right. they're just fine on their own, which was, in fact, my point. and, if you've ever listened extensively to either johns solo work, or pauls, making a statement that neither yoko nor linda were great influences upon their writing, especially when you consider what they were writing about, from their politics, to their views on family life, to...heck, every other song is a ode to their loved ones...that's a pretty darned big influence. all's i'm saying is paul only needs a good b.s. detector to do great work, it doesn't nesc. have to be john: that day is done.
User avatar
ANGRY
Silver member
Silver member
 
Posts: 1589
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 12:50 am
Location: NEWTON, KS, USA

I like......

Postby Paperback Writer » Sun Dec 04, 2005 9:12 am

I really like this discussion and personally find it fascinating, because it is, in general, about the creative process and, specifically, in my opinion, the greatest art of my lifetime! I really don't want to get into debating or parsing words, but to clarify, I did give some song examples, giving verified facts, where each others influences is acknowledged, and documented and those songs sing for themselves! Some songs, Beatle and solo were better WITHOUT the other's influence, true, that's why I mentioned the White Album format as ideal, "having it both ways. Want more recent examples? "Free As A Bird" and "Real Love" had input from the others and I believe these John songs benefitted. Rather than diminish Paul's solo work, my thesis BOLSTERS Pauls great work, having created brilliance on his own, I feel , especially challenging after losing such a great influence and collaberator - no matter how minimal in the latter years. Also, in several interviews about his recent masterpiece, Chaos and Creation In the Backyard, Paul mentions he constantly thought of his fellow Beatles throughout the music making process.
User avatar
Paperback Writer
Silver member
Silver member
 
Posts: 2406
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 11:32 am
Location: San Francisco, CA.

Postby talmat1958 » Sun Dec 04, 2005 11:53 am

Don't buy the Lennon "Paul and I didn't really write much after 1963" or whatever BS that is.

They certainly DID write together...maybe not in the same way, but their influence and presence alone mattered, and probably altered and edited each other's songs.

John was bitter then. He was lashing out. He was intentionally exaggerating to make points.

Right up till Abbey Road, when Paul apparantly suggested they slow the tempo down on COME TOGETHER, for example, John & Paul were WORKING together. Don't be fooled otherwise.
talmat1958
Jr. Member
Jr. Member
 
Posts: 159
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 7:39 pm
Location: Eastern Massachusetts

Postby ANGRY » Tue Dec 06, 2005 3:31 am

oh...don't get me in the slightest bit wrong, there talmut...i was very much being extremely sarcastic on the lennon quote: clearly, anyone and everyone knows that the four worked closely together, throughout this whole period. and clearly paul wasn't demanding that they all be "session men' there just to back up his ideas. i was, and am, mocking johns stupidity for even suggesting something that anybody with half a brain would know to be patently untrue. as for the rest of the discussion...the beatles broke up...that was too bad, but it happened. they each went on to have highs and lows. i happen to believe that pauls lows haven't been as bad as some have made out. i believe he's worked with talented people who have, for the most part, delivered on the goods. i don't care how we want to twist the words..pauls doing just fine, every bit as good as he ever was, either alone or with the beatles (and john, in particular). i do not believe any of his solo works are lesser because john wasn't around: you just can't hit a home run every time you're at bat. i don't believe any of his great solo work could possibly be any better, and none of it needed john "in the room" to "help him out'. (i know those aren't anybodies words, don't jump down my throat: it is the impression left, on me, by certain comments)
the beatles are/were very possibly the single best rock band ever. you get to decide that, on your own.
we may never see anything quite as glorious in our lifetimes (tho, you never know )
but, just by being in the beatles, not any one of the four lads should have the rest of their lives, and every achievement based solely on how good they were, or how good they could've been "if only they hadn't broke up'. beatle paul vs solo paul..? it's like vacation in the bahamas or vacation in
tahiti...it's frikkin 10 degrees outside right now, and getting colder....apples and oranges, fellow babies...
User avatar
ANGRY
Silver member
Silver member
 
Posts: 1589
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 12:50 am
Location: NEWTON, KS, USA

Postby mi » Tue Dec 06, 2005 1:35 pm

ANGRY wrote:it's frikkin 10 degrees outside right now, and getting colder....apples and oranges, fellow babies...


Angry, I'm willing to change places with you this very moment! It's nearly the middle of December and we haven't seem one drop of rain here at this side of the world. You don't know how lucky you are to get some winter!
User avatar
mi
Silver member
Silver member
 
Posts: 1094
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2005 11:38 am
Location: Israel

Postby james1985 » Tue Dec 06, 2005 7:31 pm

The Beatles grew older, they grew apart. For men in their thirties, in the 70s it is natrual for JL and PM's greatest influences to be family life and their wives. They had just lived through the biggest whirlwind - they never stopped during the Beatle days, and the only people who knew what it was like were the other Beatles. This is why, IMO, they could add things or enhance each other's songs in the way that they did. As soon as the bubble burst, and they were living very different lives, that feeling of being on the same wavelength ended. That is why, IMO, you can't speak of another Beatle enhancing the solo work of Paul, for example. Their lives were so different, and the reason that they could do it in the Beatle days was because of their unique bond/shared experiences.
May sweet memories of friends from the past
Always comes to you, when you look for them
User avatar
james1985
Supporter
Supporter
 
Posts: 4173
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 2:06 pm
Location: The old UK

Postby EddieV » Fri Feb 24, 2006 7:46 am

Lazarus_2 wrote:I heard that when Paul left the Beatles, everyone was expecting super-paul.
when all along Paul as a member of the beatles was the only super-paul.

After the Beatles we've been graced with regular-paul, and semi-super-paul.


Now he plays the Super Bowl
Now junior behave yourself
User avatar
EddieV
Supporter
Supporter
 
Posts: 7041
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 3:13 am
Location: Svendborg, Denmark

Postby Mini » Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:18 am

Paul has had his moments as a solo artist but nothing that exceeded what he did in The Beatles.

His lyrics let him down badly during his solo career, that's where he needed John most.
Mini
Jr. Member
Jr. Member
 
Posts: 171
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 10:45 pm
Location: Holland

Postby mi » Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:55 am

Mini wrote:His lyrics let him down badly during his solo career, that's where he
needed John most.


Paul "needed" John... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I won't even dignify that with an answer. You're just trying to annoy us, aren't you?

Maybe you're right, actually. Paul wasn't very good at writhing INSULTING lyrics. That's the only thing EVER John was better at.
User avatar
mi
Silver member
Silver member
 
Posts: 1094
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2005 11:38 am
Location: Israel

Postby Mini » Sat Feb 25, 2006 9:35 pm

Paul "needed" John... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I won't even dignify that with an answer. You're just trying to annoy us, aren't you?


What's your problem with that?

I would say I would be in the majority in saying that Paul's Beatle music was better than his solo music, although there are some solo albums I really enjoy, mainly his 70's music and Flaming Pie and Chaos. If that annoys you then God help you.

Maybe you're right, actually. Paul wasn't very good at writhing INSULTING lyrics. That's the only thing EVER John was better at.


Man you have a chip on your shoulder about How Do You Sleep?

Maybe you forgot that Paul started it with unnecessary put downs of John and Yoko on the RAM album.

Maybe you've also forgotten that as far as John was concerned, Paul was quite cruel to Yoko when she and John first got together.

Maybe John just had enough which is why he came out swinging so viciously with How Do You Sleep?

Maybe you've also forgotten that since that song was released Paul backed off completely from trying to antagonise John through his music.
Mini
Jr. Member
Jr. Member
 
Posts: 171
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 10:45 pm
Location: Holland

PreviousNext

Return to Paul as a Beatle

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest