Who was worse once they were removed from their group?

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

It is definitely all about personal taste.

I file solo McCartney right there will Jimmy Buffett. Its music for baby boomers who are outside, drinking beer, and just want to chill.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Sure, but what doesn't come down to personal taste is rather or not McCartney was a driving force for the band. Sgt. Pepper's was his idea and baby, along with just about everything that came after. Regardless of if you like the material or not.

I'm more of a Harrison guy myself, but acting as if he was more responsible for what went down is silly. His songs and ideas were hardly even taken seriously by Lennon and McCartney.

Maybe you are misunderstanding me or i'm not making myself clear. I'm not saying McCartney was simply along for the ride. What i'm saying, is I personally believe Lennon did the heavy lifting early, and Harrison wrote the best stuff later. And I contend that the post Beatles careers of all three expose McCartney to some extent, because Lennon & Harrison were doing interesting things while McCartney was doing some really lame, cheesy stuff. This speaking from a quality perspective only, which as I said comes down to personal taste for the most part which really makes things a circular argument.

Stefani is a bit different, as it may be a case of her post No Doubt career being more about chasing money and making herself into a star/brand, which would explain the bad pop/dance songs which are nothing more than 3 minute hooks designed for clubs & brainless listening. Which is fine I guess, but it's pretty bad and pales in comparison to what she did with the band, regardless of the how's & why's of how it came bout.

 

[MvP]

Forget record sales.

It's overproduced trash that will hold up very badly over time.

I think my overall point here, is that while both are extremely charismatic, clearly neither of these people were the driving force creatively for their bands and were probably very lucky to be surrounded by more talented people.

My point with the record sales is that it was most likely the primary reason for Gwen's supposed lack of creativity.

 

If skills sold, truth be told, I'd probably be
Lyrically Talib Kweli
Truthfully I wanna rhyme like Common Sense
But I did 5 mill' - I ain't been rhyming like Common since

 

[Villain]

John Fogerty is pretty lame in his post-Creedence Clearwater Revival stuff. The old fart can still play and sing, but the new music he churns out is just garbage.

Put Me In Coach! :wank:

 

[Anthony]

Sure, but what doesn't come down to personal taste is rather or not McCartney was a driving force for the band. Sgt. Pepper's was his idea and baby, along with just about everything that came after. Regardless of if you like the material or not.

I'm more of a Harrison guy myself, but acting as if he was more responsible for what went down is silly. His songs and ideas were hardly even taken seriously by Lennon and McCartney.

Sit down we need to have a talk...

Sgt Pepper, while Paul may have driven it, was the beginning of the end. In my mind the Beatles had already peaked with Rubber Soul and Revolver. Post Sgt Pepper there wasn't much left. The White Album was essentially a bunch of solo productions and not even a complete production. The talent of the group though ensured it would be an amazing album. Abbey Road was another great album but again not on the level of Rubber Soul, Revolver, or Sgt Pepper. Same can be said for Let It Be. You're right that Paul took the lead in the Beatles starting with Sgt Pepper, but in hindsight, that's actually what started the decline of the Beatles. Everyone wants to throw Yoko under the bus, and she was surely to blame partially, but you can't discredit the fact that Paul was having it out with every member of the band. His control caused every member to quit at one point or another.

And truthfully, history has shown that Paul was actually the third best song writer in the group. That's not to say that he was terrible, but John and George were amazing writers. The songs Lennon wrote with the Beatles and solo, shit on everything Paul did. I do laugh at what Lennon said about Paul's controlling creative influences in the later period with the Beatles. Here Lennon talks about his recording of Across the Universe on Let It Be.

Paul would...sort of subconsciously try and destroy a great song....usually we'd spend hours doing little detailed cleaning-ups of Paul's songs; when it came to mine...somehow this atmosphere of looseness and casualness and experimentation would creep in. Subconscious sabotage.

I do give Paul props for And I Love Her.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Paul is just too fuckin happy, guys. Happy people make for average, at best, songwriters.

His best work came during bouts of drug addiction and depression. That is when real songwriters get shit done.

 

[Villain]

If I'm actually going to try to compare Sir Paul and Gwen as the OP asks, McCartney still loses.

First off, No Doubt can never be compared to the Beatles in terms of how high on the musical ladder the Beatles were. Therefore, McCartney had a lot further to fall. That sheer drop off from one of the greatest musical acts of all time to the crap he's done on his own is staggering.

Also, Gwen Stefani's non-No Doubt stuff is absolutely terrible. However, from the standpoint of a casual observer, I'm just glad she did that without being in No Doubt. I like No Doubt. Tragic Kingdom ranks as one of my all-time favorite albums. This separation allows me to think that No Doubt is still a good band.

 

[dell71]

As a kid in the 80s, I liked McCartney's collabs with MJ and Stevie. Now, they're cheesy as hell, but it was a different time. I'm no expert on The Beatles but know a good deal about them despite not being an avid listener. Never bothered with Wings, at all, or most of his solo stuff. That's probably why I always view him through the prism of The Beatles. Had no idea there was any hatred at all toward him, so this thread is kind of blowing me away. Interesting debate, fellas.

Oh, just to add something useful I think Gwen wins out, mainly for the reasons Villain just gave. Though, I'll own up to "Holla Back Girl" being a guilty pleasure of mine. Sorry.

 

[NAHSTE]

Speaking of Gwen, for some reason the Mets organist played this between innings 13 and 14 yesterday:

I had been out there for 5 hours by that point, and last call was 5 innings prior so in my fading-buzz delirium it took me a while to place where the melody was from. Then I spent the rest of the inning trying to figure out why this forgettable song was randomly selected by the organist.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

If I'm actually going to try to compare Sir Paul and Gwen as the OP asks, McCartney still loses.

First off, No Doubt can never be compared to the Beatles in terms of how high on the musical ladder the Beatles were. Therefore, McCartney had a lot further to fall. That sheer drop off from one of the greatest musical acts of all time to the crap he's done on his own is staggering.

Also, Gwen Stefani's non-No Doubt stuff is absolutely terrible. However, from the standpoint of a casual observer, I'm just glad she did that without being in No Doubt. I like No Doubt. Tragic Kingdom ranks as one of my all-time favorite albums. This separation allows me to think that No Doubt is still a good band.

McCartney is still one of the highest paid musicians. Also, one of the most expensive tickets to any concert is a McCartney ticket. McCartney really hasn't "fallen" anywhere. Hell, his albums are still genuinely, critically acclaimed. His last album NEW was highly reviewed by all the BIG NAMEZ in the music critic biz.

In this discussion...as bad as Paul was in the 80's and 90's (and he was pretty bad)...in the 2000's he has regained form and has had quite a few critically acclaimed albums, even if they ain't my go-to jams...still pushes...and still commands absolute top dollar.

I don't understand how anyone could vote for Paul over Stefani...she is the drizzling shits, and once again proves unless you're on drugs or depressed, I ain't wanna listen to your shit. Tragic Kingdom was filled with those emo feels. But, as a solo act...holy fuck...ain't get much worse. She pushed some merch, but she was performing at *1/2 star levels night in and night out...and her shelf life was shorter than a gallon of milk.

Credit where credit is due...Paul has been in the mainstream since the damn 50's and has over 30 albums to his post-Beatles life. The man is due a ton of stinkers...but every artist with that longevity has a long list of stinkers to their name. Doesn't matter if its Elton, Paul, the Stones, Van Morrison, Bob Dylan, Neil Young, or Tom Waits.

 

[Villain]

I have never read a music review before. I don't let other people tell me what is cool. Paul McCartney blows. :bettman:

And my Tragic Kingdom feels were in 5th grade and that shit meant something.

 

[Senser81]

Sit down we need to have a talk...

Sgt Pepper, while Paul may have driven it, was the beginning of the end. In my mind the Beatles had already peaked with Rubber Soul and Revolver. Post Sgt Pepper there wasn't much left. The White Album was essentially a bunch of solo productions and not even a complete production. The talent of the group though ensured it would be an amazing album. Abbey Road was another great album but again not on the level of Rubber Soul, Revolver, or Sgt Pepper. Same can be said for Let It Be. You're right that Paul took the lead in the Beatles starting with Sgt Pepper, but in hindsight, that's actually what started the decline of the Beatles. Everyone wants to throw Yoko under the bus, and she was surely to blame partially, but you can't discredit the fact that Paul was having it out with every member of the band. His control caused every member to quit at one point or another.

And truthfully, history has shown that Paul was actually the third best song writer in the group. That's not to say that he was terrible, but John and George were amazing writers. The songs Lennon wrote with the Beatles and solo, shit on everything Paul did. I do laugh at what Lennon said about Paul's controlling creative influences in the later period with the Beatles.

LOL at Paul being the third best song writer in the group. Harrison's best work came post Sgt Pepper and had almost no influence on any of the great pre-Pepper songs, yet you think of him as being a better Beatle songwriter than McCartney...strange.

I don't think McCartney's control was the cause of the decline of the Beatles, it was the effect. Harrison was annoyed at playing third fiddle, and John was getting bored. It was inevitable that the Beatles were going to break up due to the egos/talent involved. McCartney's control was him overbearingly trying to keep the band moving forward, which caused its own set of problems.

Lennon and McCartney were great foils for each other. McCartney naturally drifted toward annoying, catchy jingles while Lennon naturally drifted to distasteful avant-garde. I think they had different musical tastes which worked well together. The weird thing to me is how Lennon's solo stuff is just as cheesy as McCartney's.