Pauls best work on a beatles album

[Bluebird]

LOL, first came Gastro who claimed that John was the better one, now Greatest comes with "Paul's better". What if they were just both the best, not one better than the other? Why compare?

They are good in each way, Paul just wrote the classics...

[EddieV]

Paul´s best work on a Beatles album is obvious for me. The Medley on Abbey Road. Why?

1. He worked on it for a long period of time.

2. He nearly was the musician, producer, engineer and songwriter on it.

3. I think he was the only one who could do the job.

4. The others didn´t bother??

[Bluebird]

The whole Sgt. Pepper project is perhaps his greatest effort ever in his life. IMO

[jules]

I would go so far as to say that Abbey Road was a Macca album with cameos from the others. The majority of the work was his. JL had become very bored with Beatlism although his songs Come Together and I Want You are, of course, very strong.
So, I reckon Abbey Road is PM's greatest Beatles achievement.

[2 of 3]

I would go so far as to say that Abbey Road was a Macca album with cameos from the others

That's interesting.....considering George had the 2 best songs on the album.

[maccastheman]

Yeah it's funny how the media portrayed the Beatles and the Stones as bitter rivals and mirror opposites to eachother, yet they were actually friends with a mutual admiration for eachother.

The media had lot to do with that, but so did the band's PR people. It's a way of filling a niche. The Rolling Stones had to find a way to market themselves, so why not be the "bad boys" compared to the Beatles? They were lucky that society was ready to accept them during that particular moment in time. (Particularly American society considering how much more religiously conservative we are compared to the rest of the West)
The Rolling Stones were more in line with breaking down the taboo barriers that Elvis started to break in the '50s. (They would show him from the waist up on TV, etc. - then several years later Mick comes on and he has to sing "Let's Spend Some Time Together, etc.)
When the Beatles came out, other than their long hair, they were kind of harmless. (Matching suits, sweet songs, etc.) But the Stones had an edge, and I'm sure it was manufactured in the same way the Beatles image was manufactured. It helped them sell records to the more "rebellious." It is kind of ridiculous that the music couldn't stand on it's own, but image always has been a part of rock and roll.[/i]

[2 of 3]

I saw an interview with former stones manager Andrew Loog Oldham , who now lives in Canada....and he said that the image of the Stones and Beatles was in reality, reversed. He said it was the Beatles who would be the first to beat the crap out of you . I'm not sure it's true or not, but it was interesting when he said it.

[Paperback Writer]

..... and Mick Jagger has been quoted as calling the Beatles a "Four-headed monster" - you f**k with one you f**k with all four."

My surprise answer to the question at hand, is "A Hard Day's Night."

1.Though John wrote most of the songs, Paul's were both exceptional and new-directional. The shift to more complex lyrics, themes and music happened on Paul's songs, here - long before the commonly credited Rubber Soul.

2. And I Love Her, Can't Buy Me Love and Things We Said Today are evidence of this and stand tall today.

3. Paul's harmony singing is a constant companion to John's leads and crucial to the vocal balance. The bass, is of course, always THERE!

4. This growth spurt in Paul's writing and performing talent spurred John on to prodigious creation levels.

5.Paul also makes a major and vital vocal contribution to Hard Day's NIght (the song). This gives the song another strong set of legs to stand on.

[Mini]

Paul´s best work on a Beatles album is obvious for me. The Medley on Abbey Road. Why?

1. He worked on it for a long period of time.

2. He nearly was the musician, producer, engineer and songwriter on it.

3. I think he was the only one who could do the job.

4. The others didn´t bother??

I disagree with that. The medley on AR to me is just botched together from a string of songs that weren't worthy enough of being worked into full songs. Also, Paul's work on AR does not impress me, actually I think AR is over rated except for George's songs.

Revolver is the peak period for Paul. His songs were quite breathtaking. Bands today are still trying to match this album that is almost 40 years old.

[jules]

What???
Abbey Road over rated? Forget it; get real.
Abbey Road side 2 is tremendous; the best piece of sustained, segued, melodic, almost symphonic pop/rock EVER. Never equalled, even when there were groups (Pink Floyd, Genesis et al) who were trying for a similar, themed, sweeping style throughout the seventies.
I really cannot cope with people (especially so called Macca/Beatles fans) who don't adore AR and who don't think it's the best (or at the very least one of the best) things ever done in popular music.
What side two manages to do is to be grand, emotional, tear-jerking, fun, moody, eclectic and EPIC without EVER approaching pretension. It so easily could have been a self-aggrandising disaster. But it wasn't; it was their true farewell parting shot. Total musical genius. I wonder if anybody else agrees with me?