McCartney Live?

Chashmal,

I'm not sure that Paul CHOSE the route you decribe. I suspect that his partnership with Lenon helped hide Macca's natural tendency toward excessively "sugary" songwriting. His post Beatles songs are probably a truer representation of Paul than those written with John.

Once John left the scene, I'd agree that Paul went "saccharine" - but I doubt that it was a calculated choice, as you believe. I know that some will disagree, but I also believe that once Paul left, John went a bit "sour". Their songwriting relationship may have truly been synergistic in a way that truly revealed itself only when the guys went their separate ways.

Marty

PS All that being said, there is a school that would argue in favor of Paul's "saccharine" solo songwriting. Evidently, there is a bunch of currently highly regarded indie bands that identify "Ram" as their touchstone recording. I see their point, but, personally, I'll take the Beatles' stuff.

Paul seems comfortable these days with his role as ambassador of the Beatles legacy.

I think I read recently that his cumulative #1 record sales both with and post Beatles establishes him (not Michael Jackson) as the most popular recording act of all time.

Isn't that enough? What else could anybody ask of the man?

In the 70's, Paul was determined to make his own name as a successful pop/rock artist post-Beatles. He did not embrace his Beatles musical legacy in those days as he seems comfortable in doing now.

Honestly, if Paul chose to perform "Silly Love Songs" or "Let 'em In" or even "Goodnight Tonight" at the concert
I would not have cared. Tunes like those are part of what makes McCartney McCartney and the talent for writing catchy tunes that went into creating those also helped make the Beatles as successful as they were.

I need to give "Liverpool Oratorio" a spin someday just to hear what McCartney doing classical sounds like. I'm pretty certain its nothing like Mahler, say.

"Isn't that enough? What else could anybody ask of the man?"

Well, it certainly is enough if one resigns themself to maintainance of their buisness and media interests. That's fine, let him enjoy it.

But that is not what an artist is. When it happens to a hugely successful creative person those who love and honor the creative process just have to sigh, and say 'there goes another one'.

If you look at pop stars today it seems they are much more interested in fashion line and marketing perfume than music. Sir Paul is closer to that camp than say, Bob Dylan is, IMO.

And yes, I thought with Lennon the synergy made it work and without it it vanished. At least he made those works and we have them.

Chash,

I cannot argue with your description of an artist.

I am also a big Dylan fan and greatly appreciate what he has accomplished artistically over the last 10 years in particular.

But I do not see much of a practical difference between them as people.

Dylan continues to do what he has always done well well and so does Sir Paul.

To me that's just the way it should be at their ages. I would not compare either against the other and appreciate either less as a result though.

My 11 year old Son, Aaron loves the Paul McCartney I play ,I can see he is somewhat enchanted by it, there is a wonderful warm appeal with him (Paul).
The older I get, the more I like his music. Wonderful!