Paul McCartney ram

I think it might be the comfiest and carefree of the albums in the first few years after the breakup. George's felt like he was throwing everything out there that he had written in the last decade, and john's was angsty as hell(they're both great though). It might not be the best but it's the comfiest listen for me.

Oh, have you heard Dark Horse or Once Upon a Time in England or 33 1/3rd?

>he just doesn't have the spirit that Paul has
You mean meaningless whimsy?

I think he's referring to Paul's pulse

>he just doesn't have the spirit that Paul has
POB is one of the most emotional albums ever.

Guess you haven't heard Egypt Station then because he sounds fuckin dead

No you dingus. John lacked spirit which is why POB is more lyrically focused than it is musically interesting, and even at that, it is pretentious as all hell. As a player, Paul is MUCH more soulful and it's not even a debate to be quite honest.

"Too Many People", the opening track on RAM, states that too many people think they have the answers in this life. I've always thought that John could learn a think or two from that song specifically. Also, John never wrote a love song quite like "Maybe I'm Amazed".

>spirit
>musically interesting
Wait, which is it? Make up your mind
>pretentious
How so? Writing about himself and his feelings is pretentious?
>Paul is MUCH more soulful
I think the word you meant was "dishonest"
>states that too many people think they have the answers in this life. I've always thought that John could learn a think or two from that song specifically.
Nice b8
>Also, John never wrote a love song quite like "Maybe I'm Amazed".
See: Love, Oh My Love, Woman, etc.

>33 1/3rd?
good record. don't include it with that shit

It's pretty meh. Don't be a delusional fanboy

be honest you haven't listened to RAM, have you kid?

Oh you mean my 3rd favorite McCartney album?

Get a better argument, Paulfag

Underappreciated in its day, time has been good to Ram.

My theory is the critics of the day (1971) were used to big time rock stars making music that SAID SOMETHING. Ram and its predecessor, McCartney, said very little. Just cute little rhymes and some cool musical hooks. The kind of thing that would be welcome after '85, but not in the time of Won't Get Fooled Again and Ohio. Paul was ahead of his time.

Attached: ertfgqn50pdvafukm24y.jpg (1024x410, 37K)

it and George Harrison are both better than cloud 9.

All three are nothing to write home about

>Paul was ahead of his time.
kek

George and Ringo both had one great album and one ok album, the rest are trash. Paul had 4 great albums and a ton of ok albums. John had 2 great albums and a bunch of shit.

>Paul had 4 great albums and a ton of ok albums
As well as a ton of shit. Please don't ignore it to make hm seem better than he is

Don't think I can think of a single McCartney album I actively dislike.

>only solo albums are the ones that are mucore
they're good albums. just because they're not atmp or living in a material world. disappoints me that people can't tell the quality in songwriting between love comes to everyone and dark horse.

>I don't dislike it, so its not bad
Not how it works
Same logic applies to Lennon. Why won't you admit that?

There is no such thing as objectively bad or good music.

Why waste your time posting then

admit what?

The thread is already full of opinions, might as well share mine.

That the same logic applies to Lennon.
No, there are objective truths. Sorry you don't know how to express them and have to hide behind a shield of "subjectivity"

You can kek all you want. Doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Of course it was. Artists have been making music like that for a while before the album. Hence, he wasn't ahead of his time

All right then, which McCartney albums are shit according to you then?

Almost all of them from the late 70s up to present.

Sorry

does apply to lennon. mind games and wall and bridges are both decent. his tracks on double fantasy are even better in consistency but there's only 7

>does apply to lennon
Excellent thank you