Paul McCartney...greatest pop artist ever?

[Robin, Wales]

Italy wins! = 524 points

UK = 0 points

[RussellHawaii]

Agreement here. I’ve long said this, Paul is the best musician of our generation. Songs, bass lines, singing, longevity, sales, popularity...but especially songs written.
Perhaps if John had lived longer, there would be a comparison.

[Guitarplayer_PR]

Originally Posted by Slothead56

OK...prove me wrong.

I won't. He's the GOAT

[Andromeda]

As a huge Beatles fan you'll get no disagreement from me. In my subjective opinion Sir Paul McCartney is a living legend and a few notches above everyone.

[FingahPickah]

Originally Posted by Tannin

but after going solo succeeded only in trashing his own reputation.

How so? Curious

[Bluemonk]

Originally Posted by Slothead56

I’m 64.

Been listening to a lot of Beatles recently and am convinced that Sir Paul is the greatest pop artist of all time. Why?

And who else has written a song about your exact age bracket?

[Scott of the Sa]

I think Paul had as many #1 Hits with Wings as with the Beatles.

[Skip Ellis]

Originally Posted by Rosewood99

How old are you? The Beatles became famous in the 60s. And about five or six of their albums came out before 1965.

I'll be 76 in a week. During those days, my interests ran mostly to Wes Montgomery, Johnny Smith, Merle Travis, and Chet Atkins. I really didn't have any interest in vocal music and still don't. About the only vocal stuff I listen to is Norman Blake, Doc Watson, and some old stuff like the Delmore Brothers and Floyd Tillman along with Ella Fitzgerald, Sinatra, and Rosemary Clooney. I was brought up on big band, western swing, and old (30's & 40s) country.

[Brucebubs]

Originally Posted by Scott of the Sa

I think Paul had as many #1 Hits with Wings as with the Beatles.

Surprisingly, no.

The Beatles had 20#1 hits and 34 Top Ten.

Paul McCartney & Wings had only 1 single #1* and 12 Top Ten.

* That #1 was 'Mull of Kintyre' one of the biggest selling singles in UK history.

[Rosewood99]

Originally Posted by Brucebubs

Sorry, no.

The Beatles had 20#1 hits and 34 Top Ten.

Paul McCartney & Wings had only 1 #1* and 12 Top Ten.

* That #1 was 'Mull of Kintyre' one of the biggest selling singles in UK history.

I don’t judge the quality of music by how many records are sold.

[hairpuller]

I think he is . Can’t think of anyone as talented in so many areas of music. He’s forgotten more beautiful melodies than most bands have written.
He’s also the consummate performer and arguably the smoothest bassist ever.
Scott

[posternutbag]

Louis Armstrong.

He defined swing. He was one of the greatest instrumentalists in a genre where instrumental virtuosity is commonplace (and there is nothing “common” about Armstrong’s playing). And after creating the template for instrumental virtuosity in jazz, he went on to almost singlehandedly create jazz singing.

He isn’t just the greatest pop musician of the twentieth century, he is among the greatest musicians of any genre.

We forget that for the first 50 years of the 20th century, jazz was the dominant pop music in America.

[Duh]

I don't think Paul McCartney would actually like the word "Pop". The Beatles was a Rock 'n' Roll band and then they morphed into something else as their skills and musicianship grew. Paul was a Rock 'n' roller and a folk artist and a Hard Rocker and a Heavy Metalist, and a crooner, and occasionally, a pop artist. He collaborated with the New Wave artist, Elvis Costello on Veronica, a beautiful song and he helped Donovan on Mellow Yellow. He gave songs away like Goodbye to Mary Hopkins, much like Fats Waller would. He learned how to play pretty much every instrument in the orchestra. He and John could add a harmony to the other's song and the harmony was so clever you could not tell any longer which line was the melody and which line was the harmony. Drug use initially helped their songwriting flourish and then it seemed to suck them dry. John's post Beatles hits outnumbered Paul's and for a while George's post Beatles songs eclipsed them both. From something Paul said about George's contribution to the band, he made me realize that George's intros were a big reason for the band's success. It might be good to remember that each Beatle had to submit his song to the others and then they would vote on it.

I like to argue that I liked John's writing more than Paul but if hard pressed, I would probably back down on that. John and Paul wrote hundreds of songs before they wrote their first hit. Rod Stewart only knew five chords on the guitar when he wrote Maggie May. Hmmm.

As for being the Greatest Pop Star of all time? He might consider that an insult. For some of us "pop" has the connotation of Bubblegum music. There's good bubblegum music and lots of bad bubblegum music. My favorite Bubblegum artist would be Cyndi Lauper. Although she's a cover artist, still, she took Bubblegum and turned it into high art, clever writing and melodies, and while other pop artists were doing photo shoots suggesting beastiality and gyrating their hips while grabbing their crotch, Cyndi used Martha Graham-like choreography.

[Brucebubs]

Originally Posted by Duh

It might be good to remember that each Beatle had to submit his song to the others and then they would vote on it.

To me that was the fundamental difference between Beatles era Paul and post-Beatle Paul.

[NotveryGood]

Impossible to prove wrong the OPs opinion ,nor would I wish to try, Macca is the man for him and that's absolutely fine.
For my tastes Macca is over rated, much of his solo stuff is poor. But then I never really liked the Beatles either but accept they are an untouchable legend and have their rightful place in music history. Its all so subjective, and not a league table of merit, this artist over that, some of us like one thing some another. The age we are must come into it too, many of us learned guitar to Beatles songs and that will in itself give a favourable view.
I mean no disrespect to the Beatles and Macca, nor to those that love their music, but some find their inspiration elsewhere.