Poor Paul McCartney

[tek]

Agreed. In addition to weak music, he's a greedy whore. His Beatles money wasn't enough, so he formed Wings. Money from that group wasn't enough so he's toured for over 25 years.

Not to mention that his first wife was a daughter of George Eastman (Kodak film), so he's got a shitload of her inheritance...

[Hamish McBagpipe]

He's also, unfortunately, one of those older men who seems to have the hormonal imbalance that slowly turns him into a woman.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh yeah, and he's a freaking KNIGHT, so everyone in his country has to call him Sir.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does he get to wear a coat of armor?

ps - You can be called "sir" too, just go to your local Denny's. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[astroglide]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you aware that he was in a group before Wings?

[/ QUOTE ]

he says "after the beatles broke up" in his post, douche.

why is everybody so excited to make the mccartney/band before wings "joke"? it's not remotely funny.

[Vavavoom]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


ps - You can be called "sir" too, just go to your local Denny's. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

nh

[Indiana]

Paul is a brilliant songwriter, not nececessarily a great musician. Same for Lennon.

Indy

[kenberman]

I'm sure Paul McCartney feels bad for you too

[smokingrobot]

george was the man.

[Pirc Defense]

[ QUOTE ]
Paul is a brilliant songwriter, not nececessarily a great musician. Same for Lennon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on what you mean by "great musician." He certainly isn't as capable of playing the piano as Van Cliburn winners, but then that's not what his goal is. Neither can he play guitar as technically good/fast as, say, Malsteem (sp), but then who likes that crap, anyway?

For a pop musician he's among the best there ever was. He could play the piano very, very well (Martha My Dear is not an easy piece to play), he is arguably the best bass guitarist ever, and he is a studio-quality drummer (he played drums on a few of the Beatles tunes) and on some of his post-Beatles albums, he played every instrument. And did I mention the beautiful voice? And he wrote his own stuff, tons of it. Such a package does not exist today and, outside of Lennon, probably never has.

I don't understand the sudden upwelling of "Beatles and everything related sux" threads. I think that these types of threads, some 40-odd years after they broke up, is proof enough of their legacy.

There also must be some reason that music mags like Mojo have some Beatle-related material in about 98% of their issues.

If for some odd reason you don't like the Beatles, understand that you are in the vast minority and kindly go about your business.

[istewart]

[ QUOTE ]
Paul is a brilliant songwriter, not nececessarily a great musician. Same for Lennon.

Indy

[/ QUOTE ]

For a 60s rock bassist he was actually very good. His drumming was not bad either [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] Lennon I agree with but Paul was very good at what he did.