Music Banter - Paul McCartney - The REAL King of Pop?

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)

- Pop (https://www.musicbanter.com/pop/)

- - Paul McCartney - The REAL King of Pop? (https://www.musicbanter.com/pop/56121-paul-mccartney-real-king-pop.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier (Post 1084589)

You`re making stuff up now, I`ve never once stated that no one ever imitated Bowie:crazy: For the record as is common knowledge, Bowie is one of the most influential artists ever both visually and musically. He basically single-handedly started off the glam rock movement in the early seventies and the new romantic movement in the eighties.

Flamboyancy and image can be different, but in a medium such as music where visuals are an important aspect they become pretty synonymous, as an artist tries to put out an image that matches their sound, whether this is a straightforward image or a flamboyant one depends on a number of factors. The difference is with Bowie, is that his image has changed drastically several times, making him in many aspects very image driven.

well, to quote Velvet Goldmine - "Image is everything"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Il Duce (Post 1084593)

well, to quote Velvet Goldmine - "Image is everything"

I really like that film.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier (Post 1084615)

I really like that film.

as do I

honourable mention also goes to these few Macca solo albums:-

Off the Ground
Flowers in the Dirt
Driving Rain
Memory Almost Full

this second list is completely subjective, but i love:-

Pipes of Peace
Press to Play
Venus & Mars
Red Rose Speedway

Best album he did outside of The Beatles for me is Band on the Run. But to me it isn't really about albums (there are relatively few classic albums that have been made in my estimation) it's more about songs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by starrynight (Post 1084578)

Although I like some of his music I'm not sure he's really really produced as many good songs across the decades as McCartney. Icons? Yes that is about image, and most rock musicians depend on image, attitude, flamboyancy to make themselves cool to the young audience.

And Neapolitan asks about other good stuff in the 70s? Well singer-songwriters were much less about having a big iconic image (Elton John being the exception). Then of course there are other things like disco, the start of new wave/punk, progressive music, classical/experimental music, jazz. Lots of good 70s music.

I agree Richie hasn't, (for obvious reasons) produced/released as many songs over the decades as McCartney has, but I think possibly in my own personal opinion, that Lionel Richie has written far better solo material than McCartneys.

My original referral to Icons? Was meant to mean..for example, classic singles like Ziggy Stardust, and so on..has made Bowie and other artist Icons. For writing such unique and original songs unlike any other artist has. Nothing at all to do with image.

I admit image, stage presence, media coverage and statistics, etc, and even the personal lives of famous artist is all a part of the big picture. I believe image has very little significance when rating a band, the music gives valid representation to an artist as a music "Icon". Not how they represent themselves or how the media represents and rates them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Necromancer (Post 1085455)

I believe image has very little significance when rating a band

That's certainly the case with me, though I wonder if that is the case with all. People talk about artists representing an age just because they got lots of promotion and of being totally original even though nobody is and they can't possibly know all the other music produced at the time. I think perhaps music can be judged on it's own in it's style and what it is trying to do. But then trying to extrapolate that into saying something is most influential, most important in it's time seems a waste a time.

I was really making fun of this absurd phrase that people repeat as if it must be true that 'Michael Jackson is the king of pop'. There are plenty of other contenders. People should just enjoy his music for what it is, don't make big claims as it's pointless.

Michael Jackson IS the king of pop just like Elvis is the king of Rock n Roll.

We have a thread dedicated to Elvis trying to take away the meaningless title that was given to him but it's still a title nonetheless and the average music listener will go around talking about those two being the kings in their respective genres.

It's just a gimmick.

Just like James Brown is 'The hardest working man in showbusiness' or The Rolling Stones 'The greatest rock n roll band in the world' or Kiss being 'The hottest band in the world' or Motorhead being 'the loudest band in the world'

Sure there are probably people who could dispute those claims but those bands claimed those things and they stuck with the general public so I guess there could be some element of truth to them regardless of whether they are actually 100% true or false.

yes that was my point, you just worded it a bit better.