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)

For me he is a little overrated along with The Beatles and their music.

He's definitely the king of generic pop. Wether one likes it is another question though, and he would never surpass whatever he did in Beatles.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dotoar (Post 1046982)

He's definitely the king of generic pop. Wether one likes it is another question though, and he would never surpass whatever he did in Beatles.

Well yeh how much someone likes a style is a matter of preference. He has done plenty of styles though from a rocker like Jet to the folk balladry of Callico Skies. Generic? Maybe not so much as some more modern mainstream pop. Not that I'm saying everything he has done is good of course, but he seems to have had many popular songs mixed in among his output.

A Definition of a "King of Pop" or a "Real King of Pop" is strictly one's opinion, but McCartney is among them in my book, no matter what.

Writing "Come and Get It" (Badfinger's breakthrough single)
Band on the Run (The whole album, possibly my only full 33 1/3 nomination)
"Maybe I'm Amazed"
"Smile Away"
"Hi Hi Hi"
"Listen to What the Man Said" (Cheesy, yes, but still a good Paul moment)
"I've Had Enough"
"My Brave Face"

He's had plenty of falls through the years, but at least in his case, all of those are mainly the work of one man, not a group of hired guns. I also have to admit that even if his side-projects are what one can call under achieving, there's still at least the ambition to look at (Although I'm still trying to pretend that his '84 flick never happened). Too many Live albums, though (Wings Over America and a choice of one of the others is enough), and too many weak tracks through the years, but there are those moments when he's at his best that still puts him in the league.

Quote:

Originally Posted by starrynight (Post 1046252)

Surely. He must have wrote many more great melodies than Michael Jackson. The whole Michael Jackson as 'king of pop' was just a record company idea in the early 90s.

Blasphemy!

Quote:

Michael Joseph Jackson (August 29, 1958 – June 25, 2009) was an American recording artist, dancer, singer-songwriter, musician, and philanthropist. Referred to as the King of Pop, Jackson is recognized as the most successful entertainer of all time by Guinness World Records. His contribution to music, dance, and fashion, along with a much-publicized personal life, made him a global figure in popular culture for over four decades. The seventh child of the Jackson family, he debuted on the professional music scene along with his brothers as a member of The Jackson 5, then the Jacksons in 1964, and began his solo career in 1971.

That's from MJ's wiki and I'm pretty sure you know most of this information but if you are regarded as the most successful entertainer of all time by Guinness World Records. I'm pretty sure you DESERVE the title King of Pop

Thinking on the first post...both of them are Kings in their own ways. They influenced quite a bit for the Mainstream Pop world through the years, and that's a very hard act to do in a quickly changing scene.

Not in my books he is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by djchameleon (Post 1051859)

but if you are regarded as the most successful entertainer of all time by Guinness World Records. I'm pretty sure you DESERVE the title King of Pop

And how is most successful entertainer measured? Yes he was a good dancer, he had some charisma and people were interested in his image (although his image became more strange than interesting over recent decades). That's another thing he did seem to decline over the years more so than McCartney for sure.

But to me it's about music anyway, McCartney just wrote more great melodies from what I have heard. If pop is mainly about image then some may consider Michael Jackson more important, but to me pop is definitely more about music and and always has been.

Elvis started the whole pop star idol, dancer, charismatic image thing anyway didn't he? I can see how younger people might side with Michael Jackson as he is more recent but I wonder what people will ultimately see as his legacy. If it's mainstream pop of today then I'm not that impressed. I'll take a strong musical legacy over marketing hype any day.

Quote:

Originally Posted by starrynight (Post 1051887)

Normally I would agree with you that music trumps success as far as sales and things of that nature but when it comes to Pop. The main driving force behind it in my opinion is to have something light that anyone can get into. When you achieve that status and you get the radio play then you usually get people wanting to buy the albums. So this is the only case where I would say that sales trump music for the title of King of Pop.

Elvis was truly a pop star but look at the title he was given. King of Rock and Roll.

I also feel like if you truly want to be a King of Pop, dancing is heavily related to pop. If you excel at dancing and being a singer songwriter/performer than you are like the tri-factor

I read through so far, but must still agree with the OP

Quote:

Originally Posted by starrynight (Post 1046252)

He must have wrote many more great melodies than Michael Jackson. The whole Michael Jackson as 'king of pop' was just a record company idea in the early 90s.

Michael Jackson... man, nobody gave a **** about him at all between 98 and his death. It was strange to even say you still listened to MJ. And he croaks and he's :bowdown: Over rated after death. Not saying anyone here, but that bandwagon "He's the king" mentality is awful, especially coming from folks that haven't broadened their musical palette (for example, those young enough to like MJ but not have heard the Beatles yet because they were older)