|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 20, 2014 20:40:29 GMT -5
It's not the world today, Joe, it's how it always is. You can't expect an artist to be number 1 in this generation, the next and the next. Paul and the others had a mighty long run. Were you listing to chuck Berry in the 70s? Frank Sinatra at #1? For one thing, I accept that it's a different time and I said as much several times here in my comments to you. You were saying you'd like to see what a "Greatest Hits" from Paul would look like after WINGSPAN, right..? I was saying Paul has already done more than enough from 1970 to 1984. But still, Bob Dylan is of Paul's generation and he's managed to get to #1 in recent times again. Paul got to #3 with NEW .... that's not so far off from #1 . It's better than the garbage I'm hearing today which DOES make #1 ! It's too good for today's crowd... and something they ought to embrace. But that's okay, since there ARE a load of youngsters who turn their backs on their own youth music today and embrace the '60s and '70s. It's true -- they really do. Like I said, it's not like NEW stalled at #98 or something; it went all the way to #3, and if not for the latest big stars having their albums out at the same time (whether it was Miley Cyrus,, Perry, or whoever -- or maybe it was Pearl Jam again, I forgot) at #1 and #2, Paul had a chance. I don't mind if it's a "one off" -- I'm fine with that. But what I'm saying is, you were the one who came here basically wanting to know "what's so great about Paul and what has he done lately to make him the greatest entertainer"... The bottom line, as always is this - let's see if today's #1 Billboards artists have a #3 album when they're 71 .
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Apr 20, 2014 20:53:38 GMT -5
It's not the world today, Joe, it's how it always is. You can't expect an artist to be number 1 in this generation, the next and the next. Paul and the others had a mighty long run. Were you listing to chuck Berry in the 70s? Frank Sinatra at #1? For one thing, I accept that it's a different time and I said as much several times here in my comments to you. You were saying you'd like to see what a "Greatest Hits" from Paul would look like after WINGSPAN, right..? I was saying Paul has already done more than enough from 1970 to 1984. But still, Bob Dylan is of Paul's generation and he's managed to get to #1 in recent times again. Paul got to #3 with NEW .... that's not so far off from #1 . It's better than the garbage I'm hearing today which DOES make #1 ! It's too good for today's crowd... and something they ought to embrace. But that's okay, since there ARE a load of youngsters who turn their backs on their own youth music today and embrace the '60s and '70s. It's true -- they really do. Like I said, it's not like NEW stalled at #98 or something; it went all the way to #3, and if not for the latest big stars having their albums out at the same time (whether it was Miley Cyrus,, Perry, or whoever -- or maybe it was Pearl Jam again, I forgot) at #1 and #2, Paul had a chance. I don't mind if it's a "one off" -- I'm fine with that. But what I'm saying is, you were the one who came here basically wanting to know "what's so great about Paul and what has he done lately to make him the greatest entertainer"... The bottom line, as always is this - let's see if today's #1 Billboards artists have a #3 album when they're 71 .
Actually that's not the question I asked. But I did point out that Paul as a solo artist was not at the top for an extended time. From 1973 to 1976 he was one of the 3 or 5 top acts going. After that it diminished, and by the early eighties he couldn't buy a hit. You would have to factor in the Beatles years to put Paul in the running for greatest entertainer, and he had a lot of help in the Beatles, in fact he wasn't half the story there, right? Paul McCartney solo is big. but on his own, not the biggest. there are some who were bigger. What us wrong with saying that?
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Apr 20, 2014 21:18:04 GMT -5
Just checked on Wikipedia. McCartney as a solo act is tied (with a number of others) for 32nd most successful musician (not entertainer, he'd be lower if you included other types of entertainers). beatles are number one on the list.
So if you can count the Beatles success, Paul could be number one, John number two, George number three and Ringo number four. Because if You count the Beatles for Paul, you got to count them for the other three, fair?
So by the logic here Ringo is a more successful individual musician then Elvis, Madonna, Michael, Bruce, Whitney, the Stones, supremes, bee Gees, Abba, you name it.
still think it's fair to count the Beatles years in gauging Paul as the most successful musician of all time? I'm good with Ringo being number 4. But he ought to change that song to "I'm The Greatest But Three".
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 21, 2014 7:25:30 GMT -5
Actually that's not the question I asked. So you were asking if I was listening to Chuck Berry in the '70s? I do believe he had a '70s hit with "My Ding a Ling" (not one of my favorites at all). But yes, I do/did listen to Chuck Berry -- and Buddy Holly -- and Elvis -- and Frank Sinatra -- and Bing Crosby -- I have vinyl LPs by all these guys and others, and not just in the '70s and '80s, but today in 2014. Bill Hailey had a hit with "Rock Around the Clock" all over again in the 1970s. Now -- I'll ask you - what do you think about my response to you about you saying artists cannot be #1 one generation to the next and next? About old man Dylan making it to #1 and Paul having #3 and #5 albums in recent years, and pretty much just missing the top slot by a fraction of an inch, due only to the biggest fads of the current time (who couldn't match Paul's chart position by the time THEY also turn 70)...? Nothing's wrong with that and I'd agree. But who gets to decide who exactly was #1? Then we get into semantics: "entertainer"... "artist"... "singer"... "songwriter"... "performer"... All that matters for purpose of this discussion is that Paul obviously did the best of the 4 solo Beatles, and succeeded admirably in fashioning his own solo career even apart from his association with The Beatles. Who else has been as successful from age 20 to 72, and still making good music, playing sold out stadiums, etc?
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on May 27, 2014 20:23:46 GMT -5
|
|