Paul McCartney, better then or now?

United States
June 14, 2007 10:50pm CST
Paul McCartney will be turning 65 years old soon. Do you think he was a better musician and singer when he was in the Beetles or now that he has matured?
2 responses
@4cuteboys (4102)
• United States
24 Jun 07
I am not a huge fan of either, but I do prefer the music of the Beatles over his solo music that he does now. Dont really know why, but I can't get into his music at all now. I do like some of the Beatles songs.
1 person likes this
• United States
24 Jun 07
I had the same experience with the artists during the 1980's. Of course, that's when I was a teen and not into anything that had real culture. But, now that time has passed I'm identifying more with REM, INXS, and others from the 80's. Maybe Paul is the same. Perhaps his music is something that grows on you after awhile. Music that you grow into. I would hope so. But, then again, I don't think I'm in his target audience. I'm way too young to have seen the Beetles live and he was way too old by the time I got MTV in the 1980's! Maybe I'll like Paul's tunes when I hit the age of 40 or 50. One can only hope.
@lexus54 (3576)
• Singapore
15 Jun 07
I usually like musicians at the prime of their singing career when they record hits after hits that make the charts, and Paul McCartney is no different. I certainly adore the legendary Beatles. I find that as musicians get much older, their voice mellow and they sometimes don't sound quite the same way as we are used to hearing them. We get many musicians (in their 50s or 60s)who are way past their active recording careers coming to town and singing live at the stadium and concert halls. I usually choose not to pay a hefty sum to hear them for the reason I have cited. I'd rather use the money to buy their famous albums, and enjoy their hits on my hifi that are sung in their original recording. I get more satisfaction this way.