after having a conversation with jimbo i got to thinking about paul mccartney's place in musical history.

i make no bones about my dislike for the "paul maccartney adoration society" (some here may be members of that group) that feel that anything mccartney does is great no matter what. some even feel the need to call him "macca", like they know him personally. albeit, most of this behavior goes on over at the hoffman site, it still bugs me how they have total bland faith in his writing ability. ( i know freshmen in high school who can write better, more profound lyrics, "fine line" anyone?)

i find mccartney to be a singles artist at best, agreeing with lennon when he said "all you ever did was yesterday" and also with kevin gilbert "and lennon never has to sing another paul mccartney song".

i respect the opinions here much more than those of the "adoration society", so i ask:

using a one to ten rating, where does paul mccartney rate in musical history?

it should also be known that i do own every mccartney album (no fireman, no classical, no other stuff) and i feel he has been basically 'mailing it in' since "flaming pie" and only doing it for the cash.

I guess this is just for Paul as a solo artist/Wings.

4 or 5 for solo career
1.5 while in the Beatles

I mostly agree with you - but his good singles put him in the 4-5 range..but not legendary.

Easily one of the greatest ever (thanks to his amazing output as a Beatle). But even without the Beatles and the baggage that brings, his solo career has had many highlights. He would have been considered a solid star. Paul does possess a very winning personality.

If you're including his work with The Beatles, then he has to rate at or near the top. In fact, I'd say that being a Beatle renders anything else he's done irrelevant to the question -- he doesn't need to do anything else to qualify as a giant in the history of music.

For better or for worse, McCartney is a pioneer of the "adult contemporary/light rock" radio format, and as such, his best material has been PLAYED TO DEATH. I understand that, for baby boomers, hearing the music of McCartney and the Beatles takes them back to 1966 or whenever, but it frankly just does not hold the same emotional resonance for me.

McCartney is a pop artist. His best music, both with the Beatles and solo, is still pop music. That doesn't necessarily make it bad, but it's like ice cream--it's great in small doses, but I wouldn't want to eat it morning, noon and night. "Hey Jude" sounded awesome the first fifteen or twenty times I heard it, but to actually sit through all seven minutes with the sound cranked up is something I haven't really felt like doing in a couple of decades. Unfortunately, it is apparently impossible to enter a grocery store without hearing "Silly Love Songs" or "Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey" for about the ten billionth time.

The even more cynical side of me would point out that the same compulsive Beatles collectors who snap up every last nugget of McCartney music are the same collectors who have kept Yoko Ono's catalog in print.

This really needs to be 2 separate polls. I vote 2 as a Beatle, & 9 as a solo artist. Combined I think the math would be a 4?? (my algebra skills suck!).

I don't think everything McCartney does is great but he's had a far better track record than most people with careers this long. No, his lyrics are seldom deep, life-changing poetry. With McCartney the main focus is on the music, and the man continues to write catchy melodies and produce interesting sounds. Speaking of which, the other thing I appreciate is his almost casual experimentation. When other artists were trying to make the slickist albums possible, McCartney's records had more of an off-the-cuff, try-anything feel (think McCartney, Ram and Wild Life). Even McCartney's more conventional albums often have tempo changes, musical reprises, segues and other little audio treats that other artists don't bother with. He goes the extra mile.

There are very few that I would award that top rating of 1 on your scale, but he's one of 'em.

Top score for Beatles.

Top score for Wings.

Top score for albums through "Tug of War".

Maybe a 4 since then, but that's not enough to negate the monumentality of all that came before.

I can think of a few equals, maybe, but nobody better.

If he never releases another worthwhile album or song in his life, he'll still go down as one of the all-time great pop/rock artists ever. Not everything he does is gold, but he's been involved with enough material that is, that his legacy is pretty much secured.

... and Renny, I seriously doubt that Paul does ANYTHING anymore just "for the cash".

There's no doubt in my mind that McCartney is one of the greatest ever. That would be one of the greatest singers, songwriters and musicians...not just in the rock era but in all of music history. Sure he's written & recorded some crap, but name me any of the greats who hasn't. I'm hoping to revisit his catalog later this year for my blog, since I know his stuff pretty well but not as well as I know The Beatles. Even if I come to the conclusion that all of his post Flaming Pie material is terrible (which I know isn't the case), it wouldn't affect his legacy. I've also never understood the "Lennon was a genius and Paul's a hack" arguments I've read (and been involved in) over the years. They're both great.

I think Charles has got it right.

I'm sure I've posted this before:

imo, Lennon tended to be a bit bitter & dry, while McCartney tended to be a lot syrupy; & in the Beatles they balanced each other out.

While I don't like all of Lennon's solo material, I do like some of it alot, especially POB & Imagine (I also own the 1st UK only Imagine box which along with the other 2 is about all I need); but for me Lennon's "How Do You Sleep" is an accurate portrayal of PM solo.

I like John and George's solo output more than Paul's

I think Paul's solo career has gotten watered down by the fact that he's released so many albums over the years, unlike John & George. I wonder what the consensus would be on Paul's solo output had he stopped recording in 1980. No "Pipes Of Peace." No "Press To Play." No "Off The Ground."

I do think George had the most consistent solo career of the 4 of them, but even he had a few duds. They were just fewer & further between.

All I know is seeing him in concert really is the pinnacle of seeing rock stars in concert. His shows are a celebration of rock music history, showmanship, impeccable writing/ arranging and just pure fun.

Can't wait to see him next week at Yankee Stadium.

I still think his recordings were mixed bags up through the 80's......some very good/great songs/singles.....but a bit of the cutesy/corniness too. I don't think any of his 70's albums come close to matching the quality of Plastic Ono Band, Imagine, or All Things Must Pass. Even Band On The Run.......past the title song, Jet, Let Me Roll It, and Helen Wheels (if that counts), there's a big drop off.

I agree, George was the most consistent, even if it didn't always work. John and George kind of mostly wrote for themselves a bit more (Whatever Gets You Through The Night aside) while Paul crafted great or silly radio friendly hits.....aiming for the "stands of the sports arena."

(All just my opinion of course)

Yep....he's terrific in concert. I'll be in the Bronx next Saturday too......but what I enjoy most of his concerts is that they're 70% Beatles songs.

Most obsessive Beatles fans detest Yoko. She has her own following.

I agree. IMO, Yoko's big influence was on the Lene Lovich/Nina Hagan school of late 70's/early 80's new wavers.

For me, even those songs (& most of the other hits) feel like they were written for 8 year old children.

didn't his ex get half of everything?

that's a lot of money.....

that's how i feel too.

i just see no depth to anything, even the beatles stuff, you can just tell the lennon influence in all his beatle songs, except maybe "yesterday".