Paul McCartney retreated from the spotlight of the Beatles by recording his first solo album at his home studio, performing nearly all of the instruments himself. Appropriately, McCartney has an endearingly ragged, homemade quality that makes even its filler -- and there is quite a bit of filler -- rather ingratiating. Only a handful of songs rank as full-fledged McCartney classics, but those songs -- the light folk-pop of "That Would Be Something," the sweet, gentle "Every Night," the ramshackle Beatles leftover "Teddy Boy," and the staggering "Maybe I'm Amazed" (not coincidentally the only rocker on the album) -- are full of all the easy melodic charm that is McCartney's trademark. The rest of the album is charmingly slight, especially if it is read as a way to bring Paul back to earth after the heights of the Beatles. At the time the throwaway nature of much of the material was a shock, but it has become charming in retrospect. Unfortunately, in retrospect it also appears as a harbinger of the nagging mediocrity that would plague McCartney's entire solo career. ~ Stephen Thomas Erlewine, All Music Guide
(con't.) Stevie Wonder(10), Janet Jackson(10), Elton John(9), and of course (I'm not counting) the rest of the Beatles. Phil Collins, George Micael, Usher and Prince have come close with 8.
According to Wikipedia, Sir James Paul McCartney is listed in Guiness World Records as the most successful musician in pop music with 60 gold discs and sales of 100 million singles, including 29 number-one singles in the U.S.(20 with the Beatles). How many artist do you know that have more than even 9 number-one singles? You can probably count them on your hands: Mariah Carrie(18), Diana Ross(12 w/Supremes + 6 Solo=18),Elvis Presley(17), Madonna(12), Michael Jackson(13), Whitney Houston(11), Ste
How could Paul possibly be your least favorite of the four?? What the hell has Ringo done? The only Beatle that would come close to touching Paul is Lennon.
"Maybe I'm Amazed" is one of my all time favs. The rest of the album, I may have listened to once. I agree with the reviewer, much of McCartney's solo career was mediocre at best.
In fact John needed Paul more than Paul ever needed John. And I say this not as a dig to John who I love as a musician. But insofar as consistent songwriting ability.. .Paul hands down.
bobbythenailbanger5 and avernus, your posts are truly immature and put the intelligence level of the internet at a loss. Consider this post as a Cease and Desist order.
The critics that tore Paul apart for this album did not understand it. They were anticipating the grandeur of "Abbey Road" or the greatness of "Let it Be" or "The Long and Winding Road". This album is none of that. Nor does it strive for that.
The "McCartney" album is an unadorned Paul, at home (quite literally) with Linda and the family (they had just had a baby) on the farm in Scotland. It is Paul with his hair down and his shoes off. It's as if he said to his fans, "c'mon in, sit down
OMFG THIS IS THE BEST PEICE OF S**T EVER MADE I WOULD BLOW THIS ALBUM'S PENIS FOR ONLY $2.50 AND MY NORMAL PRICE IS >6.75!!!! THATS LIKE A 45% PRICE DECREASE!! ONLY FOR YOU JON LEHNON!!!!! I <3 UR MUISIC.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
btw im serious email me for that bj at sexyavernus@hotmail.com
I'd put this album against any other solo Beatle work. Paul isn't all "granny music". Junk is fleshed out properly and the drums on Momma Miss America are can't miss.
Harsh words about mediocrity...
I think time will show that his work will rise above.
When he is gone there will be a resurgence and a deeper apreciation of his work.