Re: pete vs mccartney

[Sroundtable@aol.com]

I don't think Pete without The Who could sell out large Venues like
McCartney is doing right now on his tour.
D


But Who is the more talented musician?  Well, Pete is one of the greatest 
guitarists of all time, Paul is not.  Paul was the bassist for the Beatles, 
yet Pete would still be a better bassist (didn't he play bass on a 
Thunderclap Newman album?).  People aren't asking Paul to play much of 
anything on their albums, yet Pete plays on both Jagger and Bowie's new 
albums.  Pete is as good a piano player, as well, and also plays banjo 
exceptionally well.  I would even say that Pete's voice is in better shape 
these days than Paul's.  Pete sounds virtually the same as he did during the 
Who's prime.  Pete's songwriting and concept-writing efforts far surpass 
anything McCartney ever concocted.  Paul's post-Beatles work has been pretty 
pedestrian, really.  Pete hasn't had great commercial success as a solo 
artist, but his work has continued to push the envelope, and hasn't been 
designed for mainstream acceptance but rather the art of music.  I also don't 
think Pete would have stood for the un-talented wife of Roger, John, or Keith 
actually making the cover of a 45 and having creative input on a Who album.  
Paul was pretty gutless on that one.  Why the hell didn't he put his foot 
down when John wanted to make Yoko a Beatle?  Paul sells out concerts today 
on the history and fame of the Beatles alone.  Could he sell out large arenas 
if people knew he wasn't going to play any Beatles?  I'm not so sure he 
could.  If Pete had designed his solo projects solely for commercial success, 
he would have been a mega-star like McCartney.  Instead, Pete has remained 
edgy, never mainstream.

mc