Jump to content
Crawford13

Paul McCartney - under appreciated?

Recommended Posts

I liked how Macca went from co-writing 'She Loves You' in the 60's, with a Pot Smoker who thought he was Jesus,

to co-writing a 70's smash hit Bond theme with a woman who made plastic Sausages.

He certainly had a sense of humour.

:D

 

He didn't change the World for me. That's a bit over the top but, he has a place in pop history.

I always thought he was original and a natural musician, who also had a good pair of ears when it came to melody. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Happy Jack said:

You're quite right ... having charts made up of downloads rather than actual copies purchased has flattered some artistes to the nth degree. 🙂

Honestly I would think that Maria Carey and Madonna probably got most of their hits before the streaming age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Ah yes but..., it was the top 5 at the same time (April 1964), during a run of 4 number ones, with a week off when Louis Armstrong was the toppermost, and then another number one.

The flukey gits!

and oh yeah (yeah, yeah), Macca is fab.

Edited by mike f
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, mike f said:

Ah yes but..., it was the top 5 at the same time (April 1964), during a run of 4 number ones, with a week off when Louis Armstrong was the toppermost, and then another number one.

Indeed - only equalled by 50 cent and drake.

Generally I would put that at a sign of a very poor year with not much around.  Same as a few years ago when ed sheeran had 12 songs in the top 20. And recently Taylor Swift had 5 songs in the top 20, and that album wasn't as good as the previous one!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Woodinblack said:

Indeed - only equalled by 50 cent and drake.

Generally I would put that at a sign of a very poor year with not much around.  Same as a few years ago when ed sheeran had 12 songs in the top 20. And recently Taylor Swift had 5 songs in the top 20, and that album wasn't as good as the previous one!

So it took a while for the feat to be repeated then?
And there must’ve been other poor years between 64 and when either Drake or 50 Cent matched the record? Oh come on, it’s a bit like saying a team only wins the league when the other teams are rubbish. You’ve still got to beat everyone! 😁

And as Happy Jack alluded, this was at a time when people had to get off their bottoms, go to a record store, and purchase 7” of lovely vinyl! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Woodinblack said:

Indeed, chart position is important - they got one more number one song in the top ten than Mariah Carey, and almost as many top 10 hits as Drake and Madonna. Also only 10 weeks less cumulative time in the charts as Justin Beiber.

 

44 minutes ago, Woodinblack said:

Honestly I would think that Maria Carey and Madonna probably got most of their hits before the streaming age.

 

Are we really going to do this?

Oh very well.

Artist Country / Market Claimed sales
The Beatles United Kingdom 600 million 500 million
Elvis Presley United States 600 million 500 million
Michael Jackson United States 350 million 300 million
Elton John United Kingdom 300 million 250 million

 

300 million records
 
Guinness World Records listed Madonna as the best-selling female recording artist of all time, with more than 300 million records sold during her career. Previously, the 1998 edition of Guinness Book of World Records stated: "No female artist has sold more records than Madonna around the world...
 
We all know that these numbers are notoriously flakey and depend on one's choice of definition, and of course that everything on the Internet is guaranteed true and accurate.
 
Whatever. It is widely accepted that each of The Beatles and Elvis Presley really outsold 3rd place and lower by at least a factor of 2:1.
 
And then there's the distinction between singles and albums. Not too relevant in an age of downloads, perhaps, but it's worth remembering that each album purchased equates to at least half a dozen downloads and, for earlier 60s albums, more like a dozen.
 
Madonna was Queen of the singles chart, just as The Beatles were Kings of the singles chart. The big difference is that The Beatles were also Kings of the album chart. At the same time.
 
Check out the 50 best-selling music artists of all time by album sales:
  1. The Beatles — 183 million units.
  2. Garth Brooks — 156 million units. ...
  3. Elvis Presley — 146.5 million units. ...
  4. Eagles — 120 million units. ...
  5. Led Zeppelin — 111.5 million units. ...
  6. Billy Joel — 84.5 million units. ...
  7. Michael Jackson — 84 million units. ...

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/best-selling-music-artists-of-all-time-2016-9?r=US&IR=T#17-madonna-645-million-units-34

 

Madonna comes in at #17.

Bored with this now. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, mike f said:

Oh come on, it’s a bit like saying a team only wins the league when the other teams are rubbish. You’ve still got to beat everyone! 😁

Which is easy when everyone is rubbish.

In 2006 the charts were in such a bad way that a number one got there with just 17,000 sales. 10 years before that it wouldn't have got in the top 40 with that, so it isn't a fixed amount.

The year that we are talking about for the beatles, they didn't make the top bought songs, that was held by two roy orbison songs and two jim reeves songs, and only one of theirs beat the two cilla black songs.

 

11 minutes ago, mike f said:

And as Happy Jack alluded, this was at a time when people had to get off their bottoms, go to a record store, and purchase 7” of lovely vinyl! 

And what I am pointing out, is that if your logic says "The beatles must have been good, because of their chart success", then you have to accept the logic that it means they are not as good as Justin Beiber, or Drake!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Woodinblack said:you have to accept the logic that it means they are not as good as Justin Beiber, or Drake!

 

No one’s as good as Charlie Drake. Fact, not opinion. 

  • Haha 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Woodinblack that’s the UK sales, The top 5 positions were in the US Billboard top 100 (where they had the top two for that year).

To have the top 5 Billboard chart positions at the same time was a remarkable feat.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, mike f said:

@Woodinblack that’s the UK sales, The top 5 positions were in the US Billboard top 100 (where they had the top two for that year).

To have the top 5 Billboard chart positions at the same time was a remarkable feat.

I was going for the bilboard chart positions - they are the ones that 50 cent also had.

47 minutes ago, oldslapper said:

No one’s as good as Charlie Drake. Fact, not opinion. 

To be honest I have no idea who drake is, but that isn't surprising, not my demographic

There seems to be a whole thread here that I care how many people bought how many singles. I don't - I  just think the whole 'beatles sold all these singles they must be fantastic musicians' line that seems very odd, especially from those people who don't rate current chart toppers.

I mean if you look at spoitifys top 100 - the beatles aren't anywhere to be seen.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Woodinblack said:

To be honest I have no idea who drake is,

Really? Charlie Drake, ‘my boomerang won’t come back’ and ‘please Mr Custer, I don’t want to go’ among other great hits. I loved him, but for some reason he always made my little brother cry. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Woodinblack said:

 

To be honest I have no idea who drake is, but that isn't surprising, not my demographic

 

 

2 minutes ago, Len_derby said:

Really? Charlie Drake, ‘my boomerang won’t come back’ and ‘please Mr Custer, I don’t want to go’ among other great hits. I loved him, but for some reason he always made my little brother cry. 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think most people think their era of music is the best,  that is when they were teenagers and in their early 20's, usually, The Beatles are the exception to this rule more than most, but it does point to the general age on this forum that there are so many Beatle threads, and that some seem to think that Drake recorded my boomarang won't come back 🤣

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Going back to the OP, I think Macca’s fame eclipsed any of the skills he had, be it as a songwriter or bassist so they tend to be forgotten about or not dwelled upon. He was “just” a Beatle.

In a similar way Prince was never rated as a guitarist or bassist, he was just Prince. There must be more out there, anybody think of anyone else?

Sting? Eric Clapton?

Edited by mike f
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, mike f said:

Sting? Eric Clapton?

Eric Clapton is very much a guitarist first and foremost. I suppose sting is best known as a singer

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Woodinblack said:

...To be honest I have no idea who drake is, but that isn't surprising, not my demographic...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont care how many records the Beatles shifted, this is about McCartney's bass playing. Do keep up. If we were talking sales you have to take into consideration how short the Beatles recording history was. The sheer number of songs they wrote, and the diversity of the music they came up with, in such a short space of time, makes them incomparable.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Len_derby said:

Really? Charlie Drake, ‘my boomerang won’t come back’ and ‘please Mr Custer, I don’t want to go’ among other great hits. I loved him, but for some reason he always made my little brother cry. 

And don't forget Tanglefoot. I bought that 45! Great record.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/03/2021 at 18:48, Woodinblack said:

To be honest I have no idea who drake is, but that isn't surprising, not my demographic

I've heard of him, bores the pants off me but somebody likes him...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 26/03/2021 at 20:39, Downunderwonder said:

A bit like a sparrow doesn't understand aerodynamics.

Not this again. I often forget that Paul McCartney was a musical genius who's music came to him via George Martin divine intervention.
It's like these people who avoid learning music theory because they believe that it would hold their creative juices back, when in reality it's because they're too thick and/or lazy.

 

 

On 27/03/2021 at 12:16, chris_b said:

You don't have 5 songs in the top 5 positions of the US top 10 unless you're the best there is.

Talent has never been determined by consensus in the same way that science isn't, especially when it was mostly screaming teenage girls who bought their records and attended their concerts. Elvis Priesley was "the king of rock n roll" who sold hundreds of millions, yet he hasn't got a songwriting credit to his name except when the contract forced it. Then we've got that mega talented Justin Beiber, songwriting geniuses Spice Girls and Kylie Minogue, and the list goes on and on of hugely talented artists who sold shed loads of records because they were that good.

Edited by TheLowDown
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, TheLowDown said:

Not this again. I often forget that Paul McCartney was a musical genius who's music came to him via George Martin divine intervention.
It's like these people who avoid learning music theory because they believe that it would hold their creative juices back, when in reality it's because they're too thick and/or lazy.

 

 

Talent has never been determined by consensus in the same way that science isn't, especially when it was mostly screaming teenage girls who bought their records and attended their concerts. Elvis Priesley was "the king of rock n roll" who sold hundreds of millions, yet he hasn't got a songwriting credit to his name except when the contract forced it. Then we've got that mega talented Justin Beiber, songwriting geniuses Spice Girls and Kylie Minogue, and the list goes on and on of hugely talented artists who sold shed loads of records because they were that good.

@lowdown... I'm just curious how you would determine talent? 

As for the source of McCartney's reputed musical genius, I doubt it came from any divine intervention - more like a combination of some fortuitous circumstances in his early life, plus inate musical instinct and ability, plus a lot of hard work and an ability to focus on what he wanted to achieve... 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, silverfoxnik said:

As for the source of McCartney's reputed musical genius, I doubt it came from any divine intervention - more like a combination of some fortuitous circumstances in his early life, plus inate musical instinct and ability, plus a lot of hard work and an ability to focus on what he wanted to achieve... 

That makes sense, I think. There are very few musicians who are simultaneously (a) distinctive instrumentalists, (b) prolific and astute composers and/or lyricists, (c) charismatic performers, (d) long-lived contributors to a musical canon, and (e) willing to experiment even after decades. If McCartney were merely the bassist he is, that would make him noteworthy -- his technique was quite radical in the early 1960s. A creative or performing artist who works well within his limits is not necessarily inferior to a virtuoso who works perfectly within pre-existing limits.

I wonder if the fact that McCartney is notable for several reasons possibly dilutes critical evaluation of his specific abilities. Also, he can come across as a man who never outgrew the arrogant humility that he embodied as a young man. He is, perhaps, more gauche than we expect from an iconic musician. He's not Bowie, or Miles Davis. McCartney was never particularly cool. He was simply extremely good at what he did. Had he simply thought of himself as a bass player, rather than treating his bass playing as one ingredient among several, he might now be lionised for that alone. But in some ways he is too much of a cheerful, normal, sometimes foolish man to inhabit the persona of greatness.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, silverfoxnik said:

@lowdown... I'm just curious how you would determine talent? 

As for the source of McCartney's reputed musical genius, I doubt it came from any divine intervention - more like a combination of some fortuitous circumstances in his early life, plus inate musical instinct and ability, plus a lot of hard work and an ability to focus on what he wanted to achieve... 

Not guilty, M'lud. It must be another Lowdown.

:D

Edited by lowdown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, silverfoxnik said:

@lowdown... I'm just curious how you would determine talent? 

 

We have this show in America that tells us what talent is...

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lowdown said:

Not guilty, M'lud. It must be another Lowdown.

:D

Apologies 🙏😁

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...