Every Moment Has A Song

(answered by McKinzie Brantley III)

Most of McCartney’s solo catalog is more appreciated now; particularly the records he released in the 70s. Why? For various reasons, McCartney’s catalog was dismissed, sometimes unfairly, at the time of release.

1. The 70s were a “golden age” of classic rock: The most poplar bands of the 70s—Zep, The Who, the Stones, Aerosmith, Alice Cooper—created music that was heavier, often blues-based and laden with guitar. McCartney’s first album was home-made and has an authentic, but unfinished quality about it. There are several really good tracks on it, but it was out of step with much of the “heavy” and “rock” ethos of the time.
2. Rock culture had an element of “macho” and marketed “youth”: There was lots of praise for bands who were loudest, drank most, destroyed property (wrecked cars, TVs, hotel rooms). Also, folks like Keith Richards were lauded for the amount of drugs they took. Jagger for the number of women/groupies he slept with. This lifestyle was marketed and widely accepted as the way “real” rockers behaved and ‘real’ rock fans should aspire to behave.

In terms of an industry, rock was also looking for the “next big thing”. Sometimes this was Bowie, T-Rex, or Deep Purple. McCartney wasn’t new. McCartney was almost 30—another taboo in rock culture, and he was seen as something of a teetotaler in terms of drug intake. Also, McCartney was happily married AND he had the gall (like Lennon, who was praised in some quarters for it) to champion his wife as a band member and write songs with her. This made people angry, irritated the chauvinist strain of the rock community, and reinforced the portrait of McCartney as an out of step “square”. This accounted for only part of the anger toward Paul.

3. Blamed for the Breakup: Because of a statement McCartney included to promote his first solo album, many in the press, and then the public, blamed McCartney for the break up of the Beatles. It’s hard to understate how much this mistaken impression colored people’s perception of Paul as a person and artist. The Beatles were the most popular band of the 60s and all time. Fans, not knowing the facts, were angry at him for taking away something they loved. The press covered, and sometimes reinforced, the portrait of Paul as a bad guy.

4. His ex-bandmates, Lennon in particular, piled on: In the aftermath of the Beatles break up, Paul disagreed with the others—John, Ringo, George—on financial, management, and personal issues. Paul eventually had to sue his friends in order to extricate himself from their business partnership. This adversarial relationship led to resentments, bad blood, and nasty public comments back and forth…but basically it was 3 against 1. George, Ringo, and especially John all said negative things about Paul AND his music. George said Paul’s bass playing was “busy,” that he wouldn’t join a band with him for musical reasons. Ringo said he thought the Ram album wasn’t very good. Lennon, in particular, trashed Paul in song and in interviews. (McCartney also wrote some negative songs about Lennon and made comments of his own, but that’s another answer for another time.)

Lennon’s comments were vicious and generally said that McCartney’s 1) best music was made in the past, 2) he was lazy and didn’t live up to his potential, and 3) he was lame and his current music was soft and for grannies. It certainly wasn’t “rock” or serious “art” like he and others were making. When Lennon spoke, many Beatles fans and rock publications listened. So, Paul’s ex-bandmates helped paint the picture of Paul as an out of touch softie. Anyone who listened to Paul’s music was likewise not a “rocker,” but a lightweight.

Despite all this, McCartney’s albums sold and his music (solo and with Wings) was among the most popular of that decade and eventually all time. But, with the exception of Band on the Run (which even Lennon praised as great) critics were dismissive of nearly every record he made from 1970-’80.

Pendulum Swings Back

As time passed, the solo Beatles reconciled—each said publicly how much they loved each other and appreciated Paul. In his final interviews, Lennon says he loves Paul, thanks him for the lawsuit that saved them all a bunch of money, and praises many of his Beatles era songs. After Lennon’s murder, Harrison and Starr both work with Paul, bury the hatchet, and revise their opinions about him musically. (Harrison revised his opinion about Paul’s bass playing. Ringo says Paul was right about Let It Be when they release the “Naked” version of that album. Starr and McCartney collaborate occasionally on albums and write songs together. Earlier this year, Paul plays bass on Ringo’s cover of Grow Old with Me.

Likewise, the passage of time, and release of updated versions of Paul’s solo albums, has given critics another opportunity to evaluate Paul’s music. Overall, much of that critical opinion is much more positive:

• RAM: Dismissed by Lennon, Starr and Rolling Stone, nowadays this is regarded as one of Paul’s masterpieces. If this had been released in ’71 by Brian Wilson, it would have been regarded as one of his best works. Because it had Paul’s name (and co-writing credits with wife Linda) critics missed the boat on it. The complex, multi-suite arrangements seem like the musical continuation of side 2 of Abbey Rd. One of Paul’s best solo rock tunes (Too Many People) is on there too. Note how Paul’s guitar solo on Too Many People sounds a lot like the one he adds to the end of You Never Give Me Your Money. Next to Band on the Run, this is Paul’s best record.

• McCartney: In ‘70, this was dismissed as home-made and unfinished. There’s something to that. But, like much of Paul’s music, critics unfairly compared it to Revolver or Abbey Rd, Beatles music was regarded as holy grail; greatest of all time…it blinded reviewers to many of the fine songs on the record. While they loved Maybe I’m Amazed, they neglected That Would Be Something, Junk, Every Night, etc. This is a solid album…and innovative b/c McCartney did it as a one-man-band. Certainly not the abomination it was called upon release.
• London Town: Synths and middle-70s soft rock…the record is flawed mainly because it has several contributions from Denny Laine. But there are some really underappreciated songs here including the title track, I’m Carrying, I’ve Had Enough, Girlfriend. and the single from the era—the mammoth Mull of Kintyre. This is not a great album, but not terrible as was said when it was released.
• Back to the Egg (‘79): McCartney and critics were tired of Wings by ‘79. It showed in that many folks were unaware that this record was even released. Some really good songs here—Arrow Through Me, Getting Closer, Old Siam…much of this is mid-tempo, but Paul had a crack band and the album was unfairly overlooked. If PM had included the single “Good Night Tonight” and the band hadn’t essentially broken up soon after, the album might have had a different fate historically.
• McCartney II (‘80): McCartney was bored with a backup band and created another solo album where he played all instruments himself. Along with the single Coming Up (which Lennon praised and said motivated him to start recording again), there were a handful of solid songs, including Waterfalls and One of These Days. Some critics seem bent on rectifying wrong reviews of the past and praising everything that Paul has released. In that context, this might be exhibit #1 of the pendulum swinging too far back to universal praise of all things Paul. The love heaped on Temporary Secretary seems wrongheaded. There are several instrumentals on this album which tend to prevent it from being considered a great one for me…So while the album was trashed in ’80 as terrible and it’s praised today as an ‘innovative new wave’ record…in reality, the truth is somewhere in between…However, it still proves the rule. Most of the time, the critics were unfair to Paul at the time of release. This record, too.

So, many of Paul’s 70s albums seem too harshly reviewed when they were released. In general, the rock press and Paul’s bandmates, for various reasons, mistakenly viewed him with anger or dismissed him musically as out of step.

Perhaps he was out of step, but he was never going to be Foghat and shouldn’t have been expected to be. As time has gone by and more facts became available, Paul’s role in the breakup of the Beatles and the evaluation of the music he produced after he left the band, has been judged in a more balanced (and generally more favorable) way.