Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 142

Thread: who is better: paul mccartney or phil collins?

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14

    Default

    In a way they both encapsulate the best and worst in popular music. Both banal and sublime, in placing them together you highlight their similarity. Their journeymen attitude to their craft. The similar demographic that they service and their obvious love of Satan’s cock. You know they are both wrong but in the post modern world were guilt really does become a pleasure you decide that we should access them from a value free perspective. K punk otm with the American Psycho quote. Sure, both have made great records but they mean and effect nothing , ………a fuckin huge void.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    baltimore, MD USA
    Posts
    54

    Default

    I know Paul McCartney did some (key word is some) quality tunes on his own, but Phil wins this in a landslide.

    PC's body of work in the 80's is up there with Prince in the 80's. it's that good people.
    How good is Face Value? What about No Jacket Required? But Seriously? Enough said.....

    My vote goes to Phil Collins. One other thing.....is there anyone that doesn't like Easy Lover? I'm not sure how.....
    GIGS: 3/21 - GourmetBeats Radio
    AFFILIATIONS: BreaksFM | GourmetBeats | 2CharmingCrew | DubWar NYC

  3. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by joenice
    .....is there anyone that doesn't like Easy Lover? I'm not sure how.....
    Must admit...I bought that single when it came out (cringes with embarrasment). Collins was pretty good apart from when he did those wet, boring ballads.

    Someone mentioned Genesis' 'Turn It On' I think...I love that tune, but it was written by guitarist Mike Rutherford, wasn't it? Admittedly, it was Collins who added the weird time-signiture and bumped up the bpms.

    Macca can eat a dick...
    Last edited by Nick Gutterbreakz; 11-09-2005 at 11:48 AM.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,668

    Default

    right, i have no paid writing to do next week. i've been quietly putting myself through hell over the weekend listening to a lot more macca and (much more enjoyably) phil. i am planning on perhaps writing a big post on all the reasons phil is better – and there are a lot of them, trust me. for now, though, let's just say that joe nice is nail-on-the-head right here.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    baltimore, MD USA
    Posts
    54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stelfox
    let's just say that joe nice is nail-on-the-head right here.
    thanks !!!

    i'm thinking about the original question and maybe the wrong participants are here....

    Maybe it should be Phil Collins vs Sting. Hmmm..
    GIGS: 3/21 - GourmetBeats Radio
    AFFILIATIONS: BreaksFM | GourmetBeats | 2CharmingCrew | DubWar NYC

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    163

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by joenice
    PC's body of work in the 80's is up there with Prince in the 80's. it's that good people.
    ARE YOU MAD?!

    Besides the sheer lunacy comparing Phil Collins to Prince, i'm with Macca all the way, I love his utter guilelessness (?) that I think is the root of most people's hate for him!
    Last edited by AshRa; 12-09-2005 at 02:33 PM. Reason: messed up the HMTL

  7. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by joenice
    I know Paul McCartney did some (key word is some) quality tunes on his own, but Phil wins this in a landslide.

    PC's body of work in the 80's is up there with Prince in the 80's. .
    This is now officially the Thread Without Ears.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,668

    Default

    joe is right, but i'll wait till i get home to explain why. the last thing i would ever call macca is guileless

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    5,899

    Default

    phil collins and prince ??
    now come on .

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    London
    Posts
    977

    Default

    What an ace thread.

    It's tricky with Collins, as his Genesis work is so intertwined with his solo stuff. But Mama from the s/t album is absolutely awesome, and lots of Invisible Touch is good, esp. Tonight Tonight.

    McCartney's solo career is bits and pieces really isn't it, and it doesn't feel particularly substantial. A lot of people really rate McCartney 1, arguing it's a bit of a precurssor of lofi singer-songwriters, a kind of Madcap Laughs type thing. But I'm not particularly arsed about it. McCartney 2 has some rather good disco moments on it I think.

  11. #41
    droid Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stelfox
    4) looking at their collaborative ventures really answers this for me, though. mccartney = ebony and ivory and the frog chorus. collins = easy lover. yup, phil's a clear winner.
    Maybe its cos I was 6 when it came out - but I LOVE the frog chorus! Plus its well overdue for some kind of ironic mash-up style re-imagining.. CRAZY frog chorus anyone??



    Other than that - im not too familiar with McCartneys solo work, but i can say with certainty, that the overriding horror of Collins' crimes against fashion should ensure he loses any poll of this nature...

  12. #42
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    baltimore, MD USA
    Posts
    54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AshRa
    ARE YOU MAD?!
    Nope...not at all.
    Quote Originally Posted by AshRa
    Besides the sheer lunacy comparing Phil Collins to Prince.....
    Quote Originally Posted by mms
    phil collins and prince ??
    now come on .
    I'm not sure what you all are missing here. Prince's work in the 80's is legendary.

    Sure, their music isnt really comparable...i understand that. Different styles, but my comparison was purely on the basis of a decade of music......Personally, i like Prince more than PC, but that's a different thing altogether.

    If you look at each musician's body of work in the 80's....you'd have to say Prince was better.
    GIGS: 3/21 - GourmetBeats Radio
    AFFILIATIONS: BreaksFM | GourmetBeats | 2CharmingCrew | DubWar NYC

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,668

    Default

    right, i haven't, as it turns out really got much time to do a big bit of writing on this, but i will point out why i like phil more.
    the thing is, it's easy to slag them both off, easy to take the anti-MOR stance and say that they're both crap and irrelevant as solo artists, but they'r e not really. both have done good things, either in bands or on their own.
    (for the record, anyone who says the beatles were crap or that anything genesis did, even at their best, surpasses the beatles on top form is absolutely certifiable in my book.)
    but have both become pariahs mainly thanks to their personal traits - macca's insane quest for recognition and respect and desire to be loved despite being revered and adored as a member of the best pop band ever (really, is that not enough?) and collins’ paul daniels-style toryism and wife dumping by fax stupidity - rather than their musical abilities.
    they've both been resposnible for some absolute atrocities on their own, but i really do believe that phil collins can claim a far more cohesive, consistent and all-round better body of work without a band behind him.
    marcus and derek have both pointed out the piecemeal nature of mccartney's solo career, a career which he even admits to not being wholeheartedly committed to a lot of the time, whereas phil collins is a lot, lot sharper in his aims.
    macca isn't a great bassist and isn't a great singer or songwriter, either (i know he turned out gems with lennon, but he did write obladi oblada, too, so my criticism stands) and, far from being guileless, tries so hard to be all things to everyone that his strike ratio is pretty bad. i mean, who is he, what is he about, what has he been trying to do?
    you can't say that about collins, his music is absolutely of its time and totally him. i can't listen to no jacket required without thinking about being about 12/13, watching miami vice on my school holidays and the whole era he managed to capture. returning to his "leaving the country" threat you can even say that he captured it in his own life with his own crapulent thatcherism, therefore as historic documents, his records work remarkably well.
    this leads directly on to what i like about phil at his best: the clarity and sense of purpose behind what he was doing (even if some of it's not actually that likeable in itself).
    while mccartney dithers and tries his hand at absolutely everthing, wanting to please everyone as bassist, singer, multi-instrumentalist (he plays flugelhorn on his new album!), as a result coming across as aimless and tired, collins sticks to what he believes (wrongly) or knows (absolutely correctly).
    what he knows is drumming. listen to any of his records and they're an absolute barrage of percussion. even the weakest moments foreground the rhythm tracks, with all the melodic and vocal elements way down in the mix. you could say this is his ego in effect but i don't buy that because his voice is absolutely submerged on the heaviest tracks, so it's more apt to say that he knows how to play to his strengths, where mccartney lacks the self-control/awareness to rein himself in and not expose his inadequacies.
    finally, joe mentions prince, and i say he's right because if you listen to no jacket required and around the world in a day by prince back to back, it actually pretty frightening how similar they are, from the linn drums and brass sections to the basic melodies.
    in fact, tracks like who said i would and raspberry beret make perfect companion pieces. while there's no doubt that prince was infinitely more charismatic, more innovative, smarter and just all-round better, it's worth remembering that these records were released within a couple of months of each other, with collins having the slight edge being released in february and prince coming out in may, and share a lot of common traits - and who better exemplifies "good" 80s music than prince.
    anyway, by dint of virtuosity, restraint and being able to nail a whole era, phil smashes this particular clash for me.
    thank you!
    Last edited by stelfox; 13-09-2005 at 09:23 AM.

  14. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by joenice
    thanks !!!

    i'm thinking about the original question and maybe the wrong participants are here....

    Maybe it should be Phil Collins vs Sting. Hmmm..
    Sting can eat a big fat dick.

    Big-up stelfox...he nailed it...

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    London
    Posts
    977

    Default

    collins sticks to what he believes (wrongly) or knows (absolutely correctly). what he knows is drumming. listen to any of his records and they're an absolute barrage of percussion. even the weakest moments foreground the rhythm tracks with all the melodic and vocal elements way down in the mix
    Not sure about this. Surely solo work is characterised by moving to the piano, a rather showboating effort that rather contradicts your emphasis on his drumming. Plus, his appalling Motown pastiche Two Hearts was an extremely ill-advised retro effort that precisely showed him moving away from his [admittedly impressive] 80s AOR strengths to disasterous effect.

    Good post otherwise though, although I'm sure the idea of "the way he nails the 80s" is tempting rather K-Punk to try and hit you for six.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •