Music Banter - Paul McCartney - The REAL King of Pop?

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)

- Pop (https://www.musicbanter.com/pop/)

- - Paul McCartney - The REAL King of Pop? (https://www.musicbanter.com/pop/56121-paul-mccartney-real-king-pop.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier (Post 1082029)

....and I never claimed McCartney`s solo stuff to be any good either, looks like we agree.

If you look at the original post, you`ll see I never claimed that any one of them to be any good outside of their golden eras anyway! Whether Bowie has some better songs than McCartney is largely irrelevant, as we have artists here that are largely living off their previous reputations and have been spent creatively for like 3 decades now.

Look, here are the facts:

Bowie > Paul McCartney

I doubt Bowie would agree. :D

As I said Bowie has done some good music, but I think he is rated even higher by some because of his unusual rock image.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vanilla (Post 1082179)

Look, here are the facts:

Bowie > Paul McCartney

i seem to think they're about the same

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vanilla (Post 1082179)

Look, here are the facts:

Bowie > Paul McCartney

But the true facts are actually:

The Beatles/David Bowie (70`s era)>>>>>>>Rolling Stones>>>>>>>>>>>>>> David Bowie/Paul McCartney and last but not least >>>> Mick "Lips" Jagger.

Now that`s a much better perspective and should keep everybody happy.:p:

I should say that I still love MJ because he came at the right moment so he got the right "branding".. :thumb:

Quote:

Originally Posted by starrynight (Post 1082197)

I doubt Bowie would agree. :D

As I said Bowie has done some good music, but I think he is rated even higher by some because of his unusual rock image.

Did Bowie have an image? Yes, but so did The Beatles. Look after your Beatles broke up, David Bowie was the man. He was one of the best of Glam Rockers and influential to many bands after that genre fizzled out. If you looked at The Beatles throughout their history they wore faux leather jacket like "Gene Vincent" wannabees, then they don French fashion to appear like the boys next door, then they were wearing Naru Jackets, they start dressing down, then dressing up, then dressing down, wearing silk jackets, they were always into some kind of fashion conscience image. How can you make it appear like Bowie has his popularity point pushed by his image and not The Beatles?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan (Post 1084043)

i seem to think people just assumes Bowie is better because he's "cooler" than Paul, i seem to think musical meritoriously, they're about the same and Paul had the slight edge of being in the Beatles

all the good albums of Bowie's I can count on one hand:-

Ziggy Stardust
Station to Station
Low
Heroes
1. Outside

(and maybe Let's Dance)

the rest are mediocre to abysmal

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan (Post 1084043)

How can you make it appear like Bowie has his popularity point pushed by his image and not The Beatles?

Because loads of bands looked like the Beatles, but nobody ever quite looked like Bowie and went through the amount of image changes that he did. Regardless of his music, Bowie has always been very image driven and probably the most image driven artist in the history of rock.

Yeh I think it was the 2 self titles ones in particular he did that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by starrynight (Post 1046252)

Surely. He must have wrote many more great melodies than Michael Jackson. The whole Michael Jackson as 'king of pop' was just a record company idea in the early 90s.

Paul is the real king of pop. Like it or not the Beatles infuenced every genre today. Sort of like Mozart's influence.