It's really not. Prince was a perfect 10 in every single element of his craft.
I don't think you can say that about Paul.
Ketch's 10 Thoughts From the Weekend (What can we expect from the freshmen DTs?)
- Thread starter Ketchum
- Start date
- Status
I don't think you can say that about Paul.
You tried to make an (unsubstantiated) data argument for Prince, I provided several data points in which McCartney is vastly ahead of Prince (700 million units sold to 100 million), and that's all you've got? That's a Baylor argument.
Yes, if the standard is units sold, Prince doesn't measure up.
Of course, that means that Taylor Swift is the greatest active living songwriter, right?
Let's approach it like this. I'll give Prince perfect 10 scores in every area of this discussion. You tell me where he's not a perfect 10.
Hard to have an acutal discussion with someone who thinks Sir Paul could play a "few instruments." Honestly, that might be the most stupid thing said in this entire discussion.
Again, please consult @Alex Dunlap to get an understanding of the esteem in which McCartney is held in the bass community. He's usually on the Mount Rushmore there. Prince isn't sniffing that on the guitar side. The position you're carving out is pretty incredible, really. You could go after almost anyone in the music world and have a solid argument, but you are trying to bow up against the absolute worst possible choice for your position.
What this thread is exposing is a real ignorance on your part for Paul McCartney's career. You fancy yourself a music guy, but you're off the reservation here.
In the categories you came up with, only his performance is a 10. He's not a 10 anywhere else.
I don't say a few to minimize how good Paul is. It's hard to have a conversation with someone that cannot concede Paul isn't No.1 in everything.
I called it a push at best and stand by that. McCartney is a better bassist than Prince was a guitarist. Both were multi-instrumentalists. McCartney's work is better remembered than Prince's by a long shot.
The argument was never about being #1 in every singe category. It was about as the whole. And yes, it's downright f'n foolish to think that over the categories you initially listed (not the monumentally foolish "sexual power" you included later), as a whole, that McCartney isn't superior. Alluding to what @CS said, I would imagine that @Alex Dunlap is shaking his head at your argument.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. I don't think Colt was as good a QB as VY. It does not mean I think Colt sucked as a QB. See where I'm going?
I've said no such thing. You, on the other hand, have said Prince is a perfect 10 in all categories. You're really confused on this subject.
- Status
