Paul McCartney - The REAL King of Pop?

Urban Hat€monger ? · 07-13-2011, 07:10 PM

I assume this discussion went from being about McCartney vs Bowie to The Beatles vs Bowie because everybody realised it was futile trying to imagine McCartney's solo stuff & Wings to be anywhere near as good as anything Bowie put out.

~~[MERIT]~~ · 07-13-2011, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger

I assume this discussion went from being about McCartney vs Bowie to The Beatles vs Bowie because everybody realised it was futile trying to imagine McCartney's solo stuff & Wings to be anywhere near as good as anything Bowie put out.

Possibly, but it would be hard to crown McCartney the "King Of Pop" whist only considering his work with the Beatles, and none of his solo/side work. If you're going to disregard that and only focus on his days with The Beatles, Lennon would be just as big a candidate for the crown as McCartney.

Necromancer · 07-13-2011, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oojay

Possibly, but it would be hard to crown McCartney the "King Of Pop" whist only considering his work with the Beatles, and none of his solo/side work. If you're going to disregard that and only focus on his days with The Beatles, Lennon would be just as big a candidate for the crown as McCartney.

Lionel Richie also, as a solo artist anyway in my opinion, especially as a songwriter. But I am in no way comparing or putting him on the same level as Lennon or Bowie as music icons.

Lord Dweedle · 07-13-2011, 10:12 PM

MTV Named Jacksons death more Tragic than Lennons so its safe to say Micheal stays the king

Howard the Duck · 07-13-2011, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djchameleon

that's so not true!

yes Bowie was a bit more flamboyant but The Beatles were just as much about image as he was. They are specifically remember for those matching bowl hair cuts they had

i'm having one now, actually ha ha ha

Neapolitan · 07-13-2011, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

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.

Just because people imitated The Beatles and (to you) hardly anyone if not no one imitated Bowie doesn't refute what I said about The Beatles having an image. You even go on and talk about their image.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

I see your point but there is still a big difference in the images being projected here. The Beatles image was seen as being trendy and generally accepted as being a popular fad. Whereas, Bowie`s image was decadent and and androgynous, and parents didn`t want their kids coming home looking like that

You are equating flamboyancy with image, well anything can be an image, Heavy Metal gangsta rap, or whatever genre you can bring up - have some kind of image.

Quote:

Originally Posted by starrynight

That was part of what I was thinking. Rock is as much about image as pop, in some ways maybe much more so. Bowie was seen to epitomise the glam scene and established himself as much because of his image as because of the music. There is plenty of good music in the 70s but most of them never had the image and fame Bowie had.

Elton John, P-Funk?

Quote:

Originally Posted by starrynight

I don't think The Beatles were as much about image. That's shown in that they changed quite a bit through the 60s, they are not remembered specifically for certain costumes, makeup or a kind of attitude like Bowie is. He even made up names for himself like Ziggy Stardust and became them in concert.

Yeah exactly, they were constantly changing their image.

starrynight · 07-14-2011, 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger

I assume this discussion went from being about McCartney vs Bowie to The Beatles vs Bowie because everybody realised it was futile trying to imagine McCartney's solo stuff & Wings to be anywhere near as good as anything Bowie put out.

Much of McCartney's stuff with The Beatles is basically solo stuff anyway, so I don't see much difference. Apart from the first hits they had many of Lennon's and McCartney's songs were largely wrote separately from each other.

starrynight · 07-14-2011, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Necromancer

Lionel Richie also, as a solo artist anyway in my opinion, especially as a songwriter. But I am in no way comparing or putting him on the same level as Lennon or Bowie as music icons.

Although I like some of his music I'm not sure he's really really produced as many good songs across the decades as McCartney. Icons? Yes that is about image, and most rock musicians depend on image, attitude, flamboyancy to make themselves cool to the young audience.

And Neapolitan asks about other good stuff in the 70s? Well singer-songwriters were much less about having a big iconic image (Elton John being the exception). Then of course there are other things like disco, the start of new wave/punk, progressive music, classical/experimental music, jazz. Lots of good 70s music.

Howard the Duck · 07-14-2011, 02:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger

I assume this discussion went from being about McCartney vs Bowie to The Beatles vs Bowie because everybody realised it was futile trying to imagine McCartney's solo stuff & Wings to be anywhere near as good as anything Bowie put out.

dear God, sir! have you heard Tonight? Black Tie White Noise? Pin-Ups? Young Americans? Earthling?

Macca's worst are better than those

Unknown Soldier · 07-14-2011, 02:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

Just because people imitated The Beatles and (to you) hardly anyone if not no one imitated Bowie doesn't refute what I said about The Beatles having an image. You even go on and talk about their image.

You are equating flamboyancy with image, well anything can be an image, Heavy Metal gangsta rap, or whatever genre you can bring up - have some kind of image.
:

You`re making stuff up now, I`ve never once stated that no one ever imitated Bowie

For the record as is common knowledge, Bowie is one of the most influential artists ever both visually and musically. He basically single-handedly started off the glam rock movement in the early seventies and the new romantic movement in the eighties.

Flamboyancy and image can be different, but in a medium such as music where visuals are an important aspect they become pretty synonymous, as an artist tries to put out an image that matches their sound, whether this is a straightforward image or a flamboyant one depends on a number of factors. The difference is with Bowie, is that his image has changed drastically several times, making him in many aspects very image driven.

07-13-2011, 07:10 PM	#101 (permalink)
Urban Hat€monger ? The Sexual Intellectual Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Somewhere cooler than you Posts: 18,605	I assume this discussion went from being about McCartney vs Bowie to The Beatles vs Bowie because everybody realised it was futile trying to imagine McCartney's solo stuff & Wings to be anywhere near as good as anything Bowie put out. __________________ Urb's RYM Stuff Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.

07-13-2011, 10:12 PM	#104 (permalink)
Lord Dweedle Music Addict Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 127	MTV Named Jacksons death more Tragic than Lennons so its safe to say Micheal stays the king