Actually, I'm Not Tired Of Silly Love Songs. But Thanks For Asking.

Admitting that you like Paul McCartney around most people I know is almost like admitting that you love to hit small, cute puppies. In front of small, cute children. Small, cute children that you push to the ground after you're done with the puppy. I will say this, Paul is my least favorite Beatle. I even like Ringo more than Paul when it comes to choosing one of the Fabs. George Harrison is my pick, by far. I think I would be most like him if I were in a band. Kind of the "other guy" that has loads of talent, but is content with slowly working his way up. Not that I'm patting myself on the back or anything. I can't relate to Beatle Paul. I just can't. After Revolver, it's hard for me to take his stuff seriously. I listen, and I'm hearing John and George going in one, more serious direction, and Paul is still writing this silly stuff.

But, that's Beatle Paul. If we're talking Post-Beatles...I'll take Paul over any of the others any day of the week. How can this happen, you ask? George had a NICE solo career. Real nice. So nice in fact, that "Let It Down" might be one of my favorite songs of all time...but it wasn't enough, not for me. And John...I'll say it...didn't his solo stuff seem a bit forced? maybe even a bit phony? Keep in mind, this is coming from a relative kid, born in 1983 (the best album to come out that year? for my money, it's gotta be Cyndi Lauper's first one. I'm not ashamed.), but when I listen to Imagine (the entire album, not just the song)...I don't buy it. I only half buy Plastic Ono Band. The best song on either of those albums is "How Do You Sleep", and I get the feel that it's just John coming down on Paul for doing the same things that he himself was doing. And the less said about Two Virgins, the better. I'm not saying that Plastic Ono or Imagine are totally "bad" albums...I just don't buy them. I do buy Double Fantasy, and to me, THAT'S one of the best post-Fab album for any of them. I know there's a Beatle expert or two roaming RHT, so I'm treading carefully, BUT....Paul had to have the best solo career, and it was because he owned up to what he was.

I was talking with someone like 2 weeks ago, and they were ripping into Band On The Run, because it was "too poppy". Well, you don't say. An ex-Beatle making *gasp*...Pop music?!?!? I always feel like people rip Paul's solo stuff because there might still be some lingering bitterness that he left the Beatles in the first place. I'll give the critics the first album. I wasn't into McCartney's first solo effort, but Ram? yeah, it was overproduced...but what do you expect? I love Paul's solo stuff because he owned what he was, and he still does own what he is. He's a guy that would rather change the world with poppy love songs that with scathing social commentary. Sure, he has his causes (I just saw a disturbing photo of him holding an animal. I don't know what the animal was, but it has haunted my dreams.), but he is what he is. He's a pop genius who writes silly, catchy tunes. People often ask if Paul is a true artist, or just a clever craftsman...I'll take the latter, BUT, he may be the MOST clever craftsman music has ever seen, and that may be better than a true artist who is just a true artist. True art still needs crafting, am I right?

I've said it before, but Band On The Run blows any other Post-Beatle effort out of the water, for me at least. The intro/title track alone is enough to make that statement. It's again, overproduced and overblown, but if you'd followed his career to that point, you knew what you were getting into when you put it in your stereo. Every song on the album is crafted (there's that word again...) perfectly, and it totally fits (It also has the best album cover, but that's an argument for another time). And in his response to Lennon ("Let Me Roll It"), he takes the high road in a way that only he could do. Sure, Paul has had some faults along the way in his solo career, depending on who you ask, I wasn't a fan of Run Devil Run, or a few others...but he took a lot of chances, so he's going to have some misses here and there. His misses were still less embarrassing than John's misses (Walls And Bridges? ewww...), and he came out (when they were both alive, to be fair) looking better, because he was easier to stomach. That's what this comes down to. As a foursome, he was the easiest Beatle to stomach, and that was irritating because he was just to sweet, or just too silly, or just too much like your dad. But apart from that, those same qualities made him endearing to me, at least....and the fact that John and George kind of lacked that made them a little less all inclusive.

So, yes. I love Paul McCartney's solo career. More than John's. More than George's. And Ringo? Well...he tried, didn't he?