Ah, that's all well and good, but pretty much everything that Paul wrote with the Beatles post 1964 was solo stuff. John and Paul didn't write together much after that. Sure they'd add bits (John's angry piano intro to O-Bla-Di-O-Bla-Da for example) and suggest bits to each others songs and often put bits of songs together, but they tended to turn up to the recording studio with fully formed songs. All the Beatles didn't play on all of the songs too. In fact, as early as 1965 there's a song that only Paul plays on (Yesterday). It's fair to say that John and Paul both had their best periods of songwriting whilst with the Beatles, from 1963 till around 1968, but Paul has recorded enough good stuff post Beatles to put him above most artists that have been around since 1970. It's only really over recent years that people have started admitting that albums such as Band on the Run, Ram, Flaming Pie and McCartney are ruddy good. McCartney does work better with someone to bounce off though, if just for approval of what he's written. He's had a few surrogate Lennon's since the Beatles split (Denny Laine, Eric Stewart, Elvis Costello, Hamish Stuart) and did some good work with George Martin. Sure, there's been a certain amount of rubbish, but which artist who has been recording constantly for over 50 years hasn't put out some rubbish? Neil Young seems to take pride in releasing rubbish every now and again. But it's unfair to dismiss him as a solo artist, by comparing his solo work to probably the best and best known catalogue of songs in popular music in the work he did with the Beatles. Lennon's solo work wasn't spectacular and don't forget that, post-Beatles, apart from a few months work prior to his death (and critically this work is not viewed favourably, although I like it), Lennon's period of recording his own work only lasted around 4 years. George Harrison had a brilliant start with All Things Must Pass, but then his solo work was very patchy, with a couple of peaks every 8 or 9 years (George Harrison/Somewhere in England and Cloud Nine, although even then the best songs were not solo Harrison compositions and the whole thing was a bit like an identikit Jeff Lynne album). And Ringo, er...the 'Ringo' album is good and has possibly the best array of guest artists of any album ever. Don't get me wrong, I'm more of a Lennon fan myself, but it would be interesting to know how McCartney would be viewed had his first solo album been the first we heard of him. He's certainly done enough post 1970 to warrant praise. I do agree though, that his voice went some time ago and it's time that Hey Jude was retired. Who will replace the likes of McCartney, Elton John, David Bowie and Rod Stewart when they all retire though? Who will get wheeled out to be the star turn at the Queen's 70th anniversary? The Stones will probably still be going.
any of this ***** that's produced today rhianna,one direction ,Jessie jay owt to do with x-factor total crap.The doors were fantastic totally original as were the chili peppers in their earlier days.
Re: Blur , gorillaz , Damon Albarn going off subject here but can anyone tell me the name of the blur song used in the britisg gas adverts would be much obliged.
Fair enough. You are absolutely entitled to your opinion. My opinion is that the guy you referred to in such a dismissive way is arguably the 20th century's greatest songwriter. An opinion shared by one or two others around the planet.
You're probably talking about The Proclaimers, who can hardly be considered overrated when most people think they are a novelty act. I'd actually say they are one of the most underrated bands around, if not the most underrated. They've done some cracking songs and are one of my favourite live bands. You always know what you're going to get and they always give it their all. And when they do Sunshine On Leith it's difficult to know what could be better.
I know everything about music I need to know but which of the bands I think are overrated have you taken offence to? Just out of interest.
When people call Kurt Cobain a genius, it's an insult to anyone who ever picked up a guitar, wrote a song or tried to sing. I've been to see a band tonight from the same "scene" as Nirvana who were a thousand times better. Difference is none of them committed suicide. The people who bought into the hype are the Deaconoids. Whatever that means.
You don't like Nirvana, that's ok. But suggesting they are overrated? Musical taste differs from human to human. Which makes this thread pretty redundant. Each to their own I say. I like what I like, and couldn't give a toss what you or anyone else thinks. Personal thing is music. It's the soundtrack of our life. I can't stand a lot of bands/artists. But many love them. It's life. I'm easy. Each to their fcukin own, mate.
Ain't this a forum about opinions? You've posted yours about badgers and asked for people to respect it, yet you're having a go at others about their musical tastes. Let folk have their opinions owd ****. No ****ers a patch on Hannah Montana, record sales through the roof.
Anyone produced through the X-Factor or such like and anyone whos played 16 times a day on Galaxy or whatever it's called these days