Paul McCartney - The REAL King of Pop?
 

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.

i'd like to throw john lennon in the ring let the arguing begin

John Lennon was good, but perhaps McCartney was more productive through the 70s. And he's obviously had the advantage of living longer as well.

His longevity has been to his detriment.

He might have been a better dancer, performer is probably a matter of opinion. Singer? McCartney has sung in all kinds of styles. On a couple of albums I think McCartney played all the instruments himself so probably better as a musician. And as a writer he has wrote great songs over 5 decades. He was best in the 60s and 70s but what he wrote over that period alone would easily beat Michael Jackson I think.

Michael Jackson did some very good songs but not really that many in comparison. Much of his persona was about creating an image, Neverland being like his Graceland for example. I think he is more comparable to Elvis in a way.

And Michael Jackson admired The Beatles songs so much he actually owned the copyright in them for a while.

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

Influence is hard to judge, and it isn't always a good thing anyway.

From Wikipedia:

"McCartney is listed in The Guinness Book Of Records as the most successful musician and composer in popular music history with sales of 100 million singles and 60 gold discs,[3] "Sir Paul McCartney became the Most Successful Songwriter who has written/co written 188 charted records, of which 91 reached the Top 10 and 33 made it to No.1 totalling 1,662 weeks on the chart (up to the beginning of 2008)."[234]

In the US, McCartney has achieved thirty-two number-one singles on the Billboard Hot 100, including twenty-one with The Beatles,[8] one as a co-writer on Elton John's cover of "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds",[11] nine solo, with Wings or other collaborators,[9] and one as the composer of "A World Without Love", a number one single for Peter and Gordon.[10] In the UK, McCartney has been involved in more number-one singles than any other artist under a variety of credits, although Elvis Presley has achieved more as a solo artist. McCartney has twenty four number-one singles in the UK, including seventeen with the Beatles, one solo, and one each with Wings, Stevie Wonder, Ferry Aid, Band Aid, Band Aid 20 and one with "The Christians et all".[235] McCartney is the only artist to reach the UK number one as a soloist ("Pipes of Peace"), duo ("Ebony and Ivory" with Stevie Wonder), trio ("Mull of Kintyre", Wings), quartet ("She Loves You", The Beatles), quintet ("Get Back", The Beatles with Billy Preston), and as part of a musical ensemble for charity (Ferry Aid).[236]

McCartney was voted the "Greatest Composer of the Millennium" by BBC News Online readers and McCartney's song "Yesterday" is thought to be the most covered song in history with more than 2,200 recorded versions[4] and according to the BBC, "The track is the only one by a UK writer to have been aired more than seven million times on American TV and radio and is third in the all-time list. Sir Paul McCartney's Yesterday is the most played song by a British writer this century in the US."[5] After its 1977 release, the Wings single "Mull of Kintyre" became the highest-selling record in British chart history, and remained so until 1984.[237] (Three charity singles have since surpassed it in sales; the first to do so, in 1984, was Band Aid's "Do They Know It's Christmas?" in which McCartney was a participant.)"




As for music videos I think many of the most creative ones were done in Britain. Maybe not as technically slick sometimes as some done in America but certainly inventive, and that started before the Thriller video. Not that I want to make it a nationalist thing, but some places I suppose did pioneer music videos more than others. To just single out Michael Jackson seems limited.

For me he is a little overrated along with The Beatles and their music.

He's definitely the king of generic pop. Wether one likes it is another question though, and he would never surpass whatever he did in Beatles.

Well yeh how much someone likes a style is a matter of preference. He has done plenty of styles though from a rocker like Jet to the folk balladry of Callico Skies. Generic? Maybe not so much as some more modern mainstream pop. Not that I'm saying everything he has done is good of course, but he seems to have had many popular songs mixed in among his output.

A Definition of a "King of Pop" or a "Real King of Pop" is strictly one's opinion, but McCartney is among them in my book, no matter what.

Writing "Come and Get It" (Badfinger's breakthrough single)
Band on the Run (The whole album, possibly my only full 33 1/3 nomination)
"Maybe I'm Amazed"
"Smile Away"
"Hi Hi Hi"
"Listen to What the Man Said" (Cheesy, yes, but still a good Paul moment)
"I've Had Enough"
"My Brave Face"

He's had plenty of falls through the years, but at least in his case, all of those are mainly the work of one man, not a group of hired guns. I also have to admit that even if his side-projects are what one can call under achieving, there's still at least the ambition to look at (Although I'm still trying to pretend that his '84 flick never happened). Too many Live albums, though (Wings Over America and a choice of one of the others is enough), and too many weak tracks through the years, but there are those moments when he's at his best that still puts him in the league.

Blasphemy!

That's from MJ's wiki and I'm pretty sure you know most of this information but if you are regarded as the most successful entertainer of all time by Guinness World Records. I'm pretty sure you DESERVE the title King of Pop

Thinking on the first post...both of them are Kings in their own ways. They influenced quite a bit for the Mainstream Pop world through the years, and that's a very hard act to do in a quickly changing scene.

Not in my books he is.

And how is most successful entertainer measured? Yes he was a good dancer, he had some charisma and people were interested in his image (although his image became more strange than interesting over recent decades). That's another thing he did seem to decline over the years more so than McCartney for sure.

But to me it's about music anyway, McCartney just wrote more great melodies from what I have heard. If pop is mainly about image then some may consider Michael Jackson more important, but to me pop is definitely more about music and and always has been.

Elvis started the whole pop star idol, dancer, charismatic image thing anyway didn't he? I can see how younger people might side with Michael Jackson as he is more recent but I wonder what people will ultimately see as his legacy. If it's mainstream pop of today then I'm not that impressed. I'll take a strong musical legacy over marketing hype any day.

Normally I would agree with you that music trumps success as far as sales and things of that nature but when it comes to Pop. The main driving force behind it in my opinion is to have something light that anyone can get into. When you achieve that status and you get the radio play then you usually get people wanting to buy the albums. So this is the only case where I would say that sales trump music for the title of King of Pop.

Elvis was truly a pop star but look at the title he was given. King of Rock and Roll.

I also feel like if you truly want to be a King of Pop, dancing is heavily related to pop. If you excel at dancing and being a singer songwriter/performer than you are like the tri-factor

I read through so far, but must still agree with the OPMichael Jackson... man, nobody gave a **** about him at all between 98 and his death. It was strange to even say you still listened to MJ. And he croaks and he's :bowdown: Over rated after death. Not saying anyone here, but that bandwagon "He's the king" mentality is awful, especially coming from folks that haven't broadened their musical palette (for example, those young enough to like MJ but not have heard the Beatles yet because they were older)

Pop necessitates a mastery over a variety of styles. You don't need to do everything, but you do need to be flexible; a master of arms as it were.

Both McCartney & Jackson nailed their style of music, but they tend not to branch out further. When I think of the folks making pop music today: Pink, Katy Perry, Justin Timberlake, Lady Gaga, and to a lesser extent Bruno Mars & Ke$ha I think of people all over the freakin map.

I think its why pop bands never fair as well. Studio musicians are almost a must. The legends certainly pushed an envelope, but the way technology is advancing, they never stood a chance. And in Pop music, there never should be a classic, really.

Pop isn't a genre and so to compare certain artist together is like comparing apples to oranges. You are comparing a singer/songwriter/musician to an entertainer/dancing fool.

Paul McCartney definitely influenced Rock and Roll and a lot of the sub-genres that followed have something they owe to The Beatles. I don't think one can talk about Rock and act like Paul McCartney didn't matter, and not acknowledges his influence on it. I think he does have a positive and lasting influence on music in general. There are probably more artists (from all different musical backgrounds) that cover Beatles songs than any band I know. That shows he what he wrote wasn't just for the charts to be forgotten but his songs had substance that other musicians could recognize.

Michael Jackson had a hard childhood and (to put it kindly) a bizarre adult life. Musically I don't care for Michael Jackson, he's creepy the way he sings his high notes, and not to mention the other things he did. There are plenty of singers regardless of genre that are better than Michael Jackson. And his dancing wasn't original when he was young he imitated James Brown, and when he was older he took moves from Bob Fosse and most likely what moves he didn't steal, were taught to him. One thing I didn't care for was when Michael Jackson toured Eastern Europe I heard he charged something like 3 month salary for a ticket. I don't care what antics he can pull on while dancing on stage he could he shouldn't had change them that much, he could afford to give them a free concert if he wanted to, he is not as great as people make him out to be.

Ty for formatting your opinion this way, I knew by the time I got to MJ that I was going to be in for a biased one.

I agree and I'm sure I must have said that on this forum or another one. Pop covers very many different styles and McCartney has probably covered most of them.

I don't agree that those you mention have branched out more than McCartney. He has been around since the 60s from beat music, tin pan alley style, rock, psychedelia, disco, acoustic folk style, classical music, experimental music. I don't really get the comparison to those you mention.

If you're including his work with the beatles.

Well many of his Beatles songs he wrote alone anyway. Even post-Beatles he's done a variety of things. The names you mention I don't think have been going long enough to make a valid comparison.

i like Macca more than Wacko Jacko

as to King of Pop, I don't think there's one fit for the throne

No, probably not. But my point was that, in their short time, they've expanded what a "base sound" is in pop music. I'm saying pop songs will inherently sound dated as technology advances. Not to mention these songs are made to fit the times. Even Madonna, who has every right at the throne has a catalog that sounds old at this point.

Its not a dispersion. Pop, more than most other genres (can't think of another one), requires the existence of fore-bearers. It moves so fast that as an artist you need to focus on whats relevant. Things like choreography, arrangements, hell even musical theory requires a "team" over time to build. Where was back-up dancing before MJ? No where. Now everyone does it.

Where was stylistic change ups before Madonna? No where. Now everyone has a spanish song no matter how gringo because of her.

Where was the bass-less funk song before Prince? No where. He was just that nuts. And now ridiculous instrument choices are the soup de jur. (no idea if thats correct).

You need precedent for the extra stuff, but Pop rarely has a classic save for a handful of songs.

Paul McCartney's solo work is abysmal. Lennon was much better in that regard.

Better sure, but I'd say they were both pretty terrible. Lennon consistently hits me as a guy I'm supposed to like because of precedent.

"Aw man, how can you not like Lennon"

"I don't ****ing know, because it all sounds the god damned same and his lyrics aren't nearly as engaging as everyone pretends they are...thats how?"

Macca's singles are consistent

and his recent work is commendable

and Lemme Roll It to You is probably the best pop-rock song ever

heck, I even adore Pipes of Peace (the album)

Honestly, though, I feel solo-work wise the best was Harrison, but it's difficult to call him king from a Beatles perspective because he's written so few songs.

Then again, my favorite pop song writer is Brian Eno, and I don't even know if he could be considered 'pop'

Yeah his solo work wouldn't be, but you're right, he was a songwriting monster. The Concert for George blew me out of the water...and I was in a La-Z-Boy!!!

No... Just NO... Beatles as well as Lennon was way better than Paul..also he is NO Michael Jackson

Top three best living pop writers - Paul McCartney, The Bee Gees, and Burt Bacharach.

one of the Bee Gees have already moved on

I'd put Brian Wilson, Paul Simon and Ray Davies above The Bee Gees.

Hard for me to agree with that. Most of the famous melodies of the past are pop songs of one kind or another, surely many more than a handful. I think you might be just favouring more modern music as that is your preference? Of course more modern stuff has an advantage in that it can build on what went before, but that doesn't invalidate earlier stuff. Older classics still live on for those open to them. And rather than styles just becoming outdated as you say I would say they are simply added to. You get retro pop for example in all kinds of different styles through the decades. In the 70s and 80s there could be retro 60s pop for instance. Over the last few years there has been plenty of retro 80s stuff. All kinds of styles are possible in pop, not just those there are the most hip in a given moment. As for bands changing up their style of song just look at The Beatles they did all kinds of different songs, and that was back in the 60s.

i don't think 60s, 70s or 80s pop sound "dated", they might only in terms of production values, not the construction of the melodies and the structure in general

and you have to understand that those tunes were made in the zeitgeist of those times

Absolutely. It's about songcraft, not just the production the music is clothed in. That's why classic songwriters from the 30s like Rodgers and Hart can still have their work listened to as well. And songs of course do get covered in different eras as well, more evidence that they do not die out as they are even re-interpreted by people.

What did you guys think of his album "Memory Almost Full"?