This is better than any Beatles album, prove me wrong

>>74999027
It's not even a good album
Band on the Run >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ram

File: band-on-the-run.jpg (64KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 600x600px

>>74999138
Band on the Run is great, but the songwriting on Ram is a tad superior.

The production and the inclusion of Denny Laine's backing vocals on BOTR make that album god tier though.

Both Paul McCartney and John Lennon had mostly garbage albums with the exception of a song or two.

Every Beatles album sans Let It Be and maybe the early ones (early meaning pre-A Hard Day's Night).

File: McCartney I.jpg (93KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 600x600px

>>74999218
Except Paul McCartney has a solid 9 or 10 albums that are worth hearing cover to cover. John has 2 or 3.

>>74999027
Abbey Road, Sgt. & Revolver are better. Ram is great tough.

>>McCartney, Ram, and BOTR are decent. The rest are shit.

File: McCartney II.jpg (209KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 600x600px

>>74999265
>what is Wild Life
>what is Venus & Mars
>what is London Town
>what is Back to the Egg
>what is Flaming Pie

You've got some work to do son.

>>74999138
ram is more freewheeling and care free

I don't know if its just me but i don't connect with Paul like i do with John. Paul's music is catchy and whimsical and fun but fleeting, it never gets me deep to the core like John's music. Any-who, i agree, OP

File: John Paul.png (396KB, 679x478px) Image search: [Google]

396KB, 679x478px

>>74999345
Have you listened to Plastic Ono Band, Imagine, or Walls & Bridges? I'm a huge Paulfag, but those are all really great albums imo.

File: paul13.jpg (111KB, 799x565px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 799x565px

Except Paul hasn't but out an album since 1966 because he died and was replaced by a body double.

File: Mccartney76.jpg (92KB, 750x750px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 750x750px

>>74999461
If that's true, then he was replaced by a far cooler and more talented Paul.

>>74999461
That theory is fucking retarded because Paul's best writing in the Beatles was post 1966.

>>74999461
Literally the only difference is the hair.
What does this picture try to prove

File: 022f021d944c761dbc2ac247c7f3f1da.jpg (41KB, 736x407px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 736x407px

>>74999508
There are hundreds of cancerous pictures out there trying to prove inconsistencies in Paul's physical image.

>>74999565
this is 2 decades apart, mate

File: christgau1med.jpg (18KB, 400x266px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 400x266px

Ram [Apple, 1971]

"Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey" is a major annoyance. I tolerated Paul's crochets with the Beatles because his mates balanced them out. I enjoyed them on "McCartney" because their scale was so modest. I actively enjoy them on "Moonberry Monk Delight" because it rocks! But the rest of the songs are so lightweight that they practically float away even as Paulie layers them down with caprices. For God's sake, if you're going to be eccentric, at least don't be pretentious about it. B-

>>74999643
How is RAM pretentious? god christgau is ahack

Paul's songwriting style was always too goofy for my taste.

>>74999860
this made me kek i dont know why

>>74999565
Neat, Paul looks like Huey Lewis's long-lost twin in the right pic.