Brian Wilson vs Paul McCartney 62-67

Do talk back

Brian Wilson vs Paul McCartney 62-67

Brian Wilson
13
42%
Paul McCartney
18
58%
 
Total votes: 31

User avatar
Still Baron
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 43865
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Re: Brian Wilson vs Paul McCartney 62-67

Postby Still Baron » 09 Dec 2014, 23:05

I don't really care about the answer---if one made more great records over six years, or "wins" by some other measurement, that's OK with me. I have plenty of time for both. But I am persuaded by the diversity of Paul's gifts. He was almost certainly a more versatile singer and instrumentalist. Whether "I'm Down" is a great record or not, I don't think anyone would argue that the performance was something Wilson had in him.
Quaco wrote:Are you fucking high?

take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.

User avatar
Still Baron
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 43865
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Re: Brian Wilson vs Paul McCartney 62-67

Postby Still Baron » 09 Dec 2014, 23:06

Rayge wrote:What's with you people? Don't you like rock & roll, noise, excitement?


Happily, Sir Paul is capable of all three!
Quaco wrote:Are you fucking high?

take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.

User avatar
Nolamike
Posts: 13985
Joined: 05 Dec 2005, 21:31
Location: Heaven, Hell, or Houston
Contact:

Re: Brian Wilson vs Paul McCartney 62-67

Postby Nolamike » 10 Dec 2014, 01:02

Viscount Jizzmark wrote:[Paul] was almost certainly a more versatile singer and instrumentalist. Whether "I'm Down" is a great record or not, I don't think anyone would argue that the performance was something Wilson had in him.


You're absolutely correct there.
Sir John Coan wrote:Nolamike is speaking nothing but sense here.


Loki wrote:Mike is Hookfinger's shill.

User avatar
Matt Wilson
Psychedelic Cowpunk
Posts: 30247
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 20:18
Location: Edge of a continent

Re: Brian Wilson vs Paul McCartney 62-67

Postby Matt Wilson » 10 Dec 2014, 01:59

Rootie Tootie wrote:They're both boring as fuck anyway.


Fucking should never be boring, John. Even for you.

User avatar
Diamond Dog
"Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
Posts: 68782
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
Location: High On Poachers Hill

Re: Brian Wilson vs Paul McCartney 62-67

Postby Diamond Dog » 10 Dec 2014, 10:29

jimboo wrote:I have heard pet sounds and it isn't very good. If we are going to list songs between the two attempting to show the full spectrum of their respective abilities as songwriters, you will find yourself receiving a bigger battering than Foreman handed to Frazier in 1973



Well I welcome that.

But I was merely refuting your ridiculous claim that Wilson only wrote one song/album for his whole career (yes, that's what you said), which is plainly nonsense. You may not like any of Brian Wilson's material - that is your choice. But you simply cannot claim that he had no variety at all (which you did).

It may have escaped your attention that, in fact, I have argued very forcefully for Macca's pre-eminence here. But to make false claims about Wilson - as you did- weakens the case for McCartney, not strengthens it, because everyone thinks you're having to blag it, because your claim is completely fatuous shit.


You don't need to make false claims for either. And you did.
I still think almost everyone is wrong and I am right.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
As silver tears they weave and lace, Sad patterns upon her face

User avatar
MALLETT
hounds people off the board
Posts: 19811
Joined: 24 Apr 2007, 23:21

Re: Brian Wilson vs Paul McCartney 62-67

Postby MALLETT » 10 Dec 2014, 10:37

Goat Boy wrote:I've just seen a face is slight as hell. Fairly typical of the Beatles during that Help period I think.


Yeah - so much subpar shit on that album. That one, 'I Need You', 'Another Girl'.... It's Hermans Hermits, really.
GoogaMooga wrote:I am culling more than I am buying, but just barely. I intend to enrich, not expand, the collection.


soundchaser wrote:Wow, I am so impressed with this player: crisp; clear; detailed and yet, velvety.

User avatar
jimboo
Posts: 6769
Joined: 29 Dec 2005, 17:43
Location: taking a foxy kind of stand

Re: Brian Wilson vs Paul McCartney 62-67

Postby jimboo » 10 Dec 2014, 13:25

Diamond Dog wrote:
jimboo wrote:I have heard pet sounds and it isn't very good. If we are going to list songs between the two attempting to show the full spectrum of their respective abilities as songwriters, you will find yourself receiving a bigger battering than Foreman handed to Frazier in 1973



Well I welcome that.

But I was merely refuting your ridiculous claim that Wilson only wrote one song/album for his whole career (yes, that's what you said), which is plainly nonsense. You may not like any of Brian Wilson's material - that is your choice. But you simply cannot claim that he had no variety at all (which you did).

It may have escaped your attention that, in fact, I have argued very forcefully for Macca's pre-eminence here. But to make false claims about Wilson - as you did- weakens the case for McCartney, not strengthens it, because everyone thinks you're having to blag it, because your claim is completely fatuous shit.


You don't need to make false claims for either. And you did.


Variety ? Ok , i will let you offer me one Beach Boys album up against another. Any one from the 48 variations of Safari gems right up to the car crash of the post seventies cabaret drivel for motor industry executives. They start off with the same old surf and sunshine , decide we should all be dancing and then from the sandpit of recreational possibilities we get the one true great moment. As the man's brain disengages from reality the others carry on as the choice of easy listening for them who find the Osmonds a little too rocky.

Go on knock yourself out , Helter Skelter is on in the background.


Which part of Macca's heroic defence did i offer that upsets the balance ?

I'm no Beatle lover


Macca has written more turgid twee shite than most
Goat Boy wrote:Oh, do fuck off, prog boy.

User avatar
The Slider
Self-Aggrandising Cock
Posts: 47037
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 19:05
Location: I'm only here for the sneer
Contact:

Re: Brian Wilson vs Paul McCartney 62-67

Postby The Slider » 10 Dec 2014, 13:48

Still, Cabin Essence is gorgeous (apart from the wanky noisy bit in the middle) and Surf's Up (apart from the wanky child-is-father-of-the-man bit) has one of the most achingly beautiful melodies ever. Easily a match for McCartney's very best.

But all that subpar shite on Help! is like Wilson firing at 90%
The Complete Slade Mp3 set now available in the usual place, should you want one.
Image

sloopjohnc
Posts: 63921
Joined: 03 Jun 2004, 20:12

Re: Brian Wilson vs Paul McCartney 62-67

Postby sloopjohnc » 10 Dec 2014, 16:17

I've been listening to lots of early Beatles lately and it struck me how much Lennon dominated those early years in the songwriting and singing department. It wasn't until later that McCartney seemed to become an equal partner until he surpassed Lennon when Lennon was losing it for various reasons. I think McCartney became the McCartney we greatly know around '66 and after. While McCartney is surely talented, he had a songwriting foil of equal talent at least where Wilson did not. Wilson also didn't have a George Martin. Yeah, he had the wrecking crew to play on albums, and I'm sure they provided some input about how the songs would be played, but I bet it was Wilson who conducted the sessions, for the most part.
Don't fake the funk on a nasty dunk!

User avatar
The Slider
Self-Aggrandising Cock
Posts: 47037
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 19:05
Location: I'm only here for the sneer
Contact:

Re: Brian Wilson vs Paul McCartney 62-67

Postby The Slider » 10 Dec 2014, 16:40

sloopjohnc wrote: While McCartney is surely talented, he had a songwriting foil of equal talent at least where Wilson did not.



Some chopped liver, earlier:

Image


:lol:
The Complete Slade Mp3 set now available in the usual place, should you want one.
Image

User avatar
GoogaMooga
custodian of oldies
Posts: 26462
Joined: 28 Sep 2010, 05:23
Location: Denmark

Re: Brian Wilson vs Paul McCartney 62-67

Postby GoogaMooga » 10 Dec 2014, 18:11

iconoclasm gone wild! Wilson is the greatest songwriter of the second half of the 20th c. Who did the Gershwin estate turn to for the Gershwin album, incl. the license to add new songs? Wilson, of course. This is the Great American Songbook versus music hall. Macca's balladry is more obvious, Wilson's more off the wall, more profound. Neither songwriter rocked out much. Macca's crowning achievement is the Abbey Road suite on side 2, but Wilson filled whole albums of equal or superior quality. Ultimately, though, if you care about music, you should have time for both songwriters. Anything else is just delusional, showy pretense, ain't I cool the way I can knock Wilson.
"When the desert comes, people will be sad; just as Cannery Row was sad when all the pilchards were caught and canned and eaten." - John Steinbeck

User avatar
Quaco
F R double E
Posts: 47241
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 19:41

Re: Brian Wilson vs Paul McCartney 62-67

Postby Quaco » 10 Dec 2014, 18:17

sloopjohnc wrote:While McCartney is surely talented, he had a songwriting foil of equal talent at least where Wilson did not. Wilson also didn't have a George Martin. Yeah, he had the wrecking crew to play on albums, and I'm sure they provided some input about how the songs would be played, but I bet it was Wilson who conducted the sessions, for the most part.

I was thinking a similar thing this morning: that McCartney had this great, functional machine making his (and hell, even George's) songs sound the best they could be, while one almost gets the impression that Wilson's achievements were in spite of various obstacles.

I'm quite happy with the way my life has gone, with Lennon-McCartney as something akin to mother's milk, then discovering Wilson in my preteens and getting into Townshend as a teenager.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

sloopjohnc
Posts: 63921
Joined: 03 Jun 2004, 20:12

Re: Brian Wilson vs Paul McCartney 62-67

Postby sloopjohnc » 10 Dec 2014, 18:35

Quacoan wrote:
sloopjohnc wrote:While McCartney is surely talented, he had a songwriting foil of equal talent at least where Wilson did not. Wilson also didn't have a George Martin. Yeah, he had the wrecking crew to play on albums, and I'm sure they provided some input about how the songs would be played, but I bet it was Wilson who conducted the sessions, for the most part.

I was thinking a similar thing this morning: that McCartney had this great, functional machine making his (and hell, even George's) songs sound the best they could be, while one almost gets the impression that Wilson's achievements were in spite of various obstacles.

I'm quite happy with the way my life has gone, with Lennon-McCartney as something akin to mother's milk, then discovering Wilson in my preteens and getting into Townshend as a teenager.


In that vein, I think McCartney has even stated that George's guitar arpeggio, intro and solo helped make And I Love Her, for example, the song it eventually became. I'm not a Beach Boys' nut, but were any of the other Beach Boys even in the studio except for the voice parts?
Don't fake the funk on a nasty dunk!

User avatar
Quaco
F R double E
Posts: 47241
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 19:41

Re: Brian Wilson vs Paul McCartney 62-67

Postby Quaco » 10 Dec 2014, 18:49

In the early days, yes, and Carl would continue to lay down lead guitar parts for a couple years. But by '65, I think they were pretty well gone.

Also, the vocal arrangements were Brian's alone; they just sang what he told them to. It's actually quite surprising that their post-Brian work was as good as it was, but I guess by then they had gotten the hang of it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

User avatar
Diamond Dog
"Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
Posts: 68782
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
Location: High On Poachers Hill

Re: Brian Wilson vs Paul McCartney 62-67

Postby Diamond Dog » 10 Dec 2014, 19:59

jimboo wrote: Variety ? Ok , i will let you offer me one Beach Boys album up against another. Any one from the 48 variations of Safari gems right up to the car crash of the post seventies cabaret drivel for motor industry executives. They start off with the same old surf and sunshine , decide we should all be dancing and then from the sandpit of recreational possibilities we get the one true great moment. As the man's brain disengages from reality the others carry on as the choice of easy listening for them who find the Osmonds a little too rocky.



You haven't ever heard "Pet Sounds" have you?
I still think almost everyone is wrong and I am right.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
As silver tears they weave and lace, Sad patterns upon her face

User avatar
jimboo
Posts: 6769
Joined: 29 Dec 2005, 17:43
Location: taking a foxy kind of stand

Re: Brian Wilson vs Paul McCartney 62-67

Postby jimboo » 10 Dec 2014, 20:17

I own the stereo/mono c.d version and a copy on vinyl actually. DD, Pet Sounds is not to my ears a magnum opus . It starts with a run of the mill barber shop slice of sunshine pop and finishes with a Dionne Warwick Burt Bacharach penned 'b' side soundalike , it has Sloop John B in the middle which is fucking dreadful and the same old filler that populates every other album.

God only knows is 100% bona fide brilliance. For it to stand in such high esteem back in the day and the kudos it continues to receive baffles me.

I get it , you love it. To me it is just a record with one truly outstanding track.
Goat Boy wrote:Oh, do fuck off, prog boy.

User avatar
Diamond Dog
"Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
Posts: 68782
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
Location: High On Poachers Hill

Re: Brian Wilson vs Paul McCartney 62-67

Postby Diamond Dog » 10 Dec 2014, 20:23

jimboo wrote:I own the stereo/mono c.d version and a copy on vinyl actually. DD, Pet Sounds is not to my ears a magnum opus . It starts with a run of the mill barber shop slice of sunshine pop and finishes with a Dionne Warwick Burt Bacharach penned 'b' side soundalike , it has Sloop John B in the middle which is fucking dreadful and the same old filler that populates every other album.

God only knows is 100% bona fide brilliance. For it to stand in such high esteem back in the day and the kudos it continues to receive baffles me.

I get it , you love it. To me it is just a record with one truly outstanding track.


Come along - you cannot seriously be suggesting that tracks like "Caroline No", "I Just Wasn't Made For These Times", "Don't Talk (Put Your Head On My Shoulder", "Here Today" and the glorious instrumental "Let's Go Away For Awhile" fit those categories? You know....really?

I understand you may not like it. But you are making yourself look foolish with your utter disdain for it and your complete misrepresentation of it.
I still think almost everyone is wrong and I am right.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
As silver tears they weave and lace, Sad patterns upon her face

User avatar
jimboo
Posts: 6769
Joined: 29 Dec 2005, 17:43
Location: taking a foxy kind of stand

Re: Brian Wilson vs Paul McCartney 62-67

Postby jimboo » 10 Dec 2014, 20:36

Foolish ? To a lover of it maybe. It really is a plain Jane. Honestly ? Because people like yourself and it's continuous topping of polls for so many years I have given it every chance (I bought it again to hear the mono/stereo version ). I am not sacred cow bashing or just being more of a wanker than usual. There is one truly earth shattering track. It is so good that words fail me. The rest of the album is just terribly dull.
Goat Boy wrote:Oh, do fuck off, prog boy.

User avatar
Diamond Dog
"Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
Posts: 68782
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
Location: High On Poachers Hill

Re: Brian Wilson vs Paul McCartney 62-67

Postby Diamond Dog » 10 Dec 2014, 20:41

Ok, leaving aside that you don't like it (which is fine) your premise as re this thread was that Brian Wilson only ever wrote one album and they all sound the same. You cannot say that about "Pet Sounds" when compared to what came before it, when the tracks I posted up there (and others) are socompletely unlike "Barbara Ann", "Surfin' USA" "I Get Around" etc etc etc.

You have to concede that?
I still think almost everyone is wrong and I am right.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
As silver tears they weave and lace, Sad patterns upon her face

User avatar
jimboo
Posts: 6769
Joined: 29 Dec 2005, 17:43
Location: taking a foxy kind of stand

Re: Brian Wilson vs Paul McCartney 62-67

Postby jimboo » 10 Dec 2014, 21:00

"Barbara Ann", "Surfin' USA" "I Get Around are just variations of the same old thing and yeah , they sound the same. God only knows is great , 'Wouldn't it be nice' is just the first three mentioned all over again. After Pet Sounds he reverts to type (and let's face it , no-one is going to say they got any better ). He nailed it with God Only Knows . That is it , really. Good vibrations - Heroes and villains, the pace of change and pushing of boundaries is not happening. He does his thing , you know a Beach Boys album is gonna come with the sound and bounce one expects. The Bee Gees, fer instance, showed more ambition and vision than Brian ever managed.

If it wasn't for God only Knows I wouldn't know why there is any fuss to be made. Pet Sounds as a major milestone ? I am so sorry mate . I really don't hear it the way you do.

Macca around the same period was on fire. Back in the U.S.S.R is the fabs showing the Boys just how easy it was for them to knock that California ray of sunshine and turn it into something special.
Goat Boy wrote:Oh, do fuck off, prog boy.