radhead said:
The downward turn of the band would better be described as McCartney and Lennon going in separate directions in terms of songwriting.
A song like "Imagine" never could have stood on its own without John's reputation as a Beatle.
Paul, on the other hand, attracted fans who knew/cared nothing about the Beatles.
Yeah, a valid point. I've recorded my opinion of Imagine elsewhere (worst song of all time would be a fair summary). But would McCartney have recorded Mary had a Little Lamb, or Silly Love Songs, or Mull of Kintyre, or Ebony and Ivory if the process of presenting them to his band had entailed subjecting himself to Lennon's sarcasm? After the Beatles, he was such a power figure that no one was ever going to say him nay, and in fact he recorded some albums with himself as just about the only player, which of course says something about the man's prodigious talent, which has never been in dispute, neither has his love of making music.
His pre breakup stuff was a lot better. I also think his stuff on the Help/Rubber Soul/Revolver sequence (can't think of anything else to call it) was a lot better than what came on later albums. Of course there were good things afterwards, too, but compare You Won't see Me, Eleanor Rigby, Got to get you etc to, ahhhhhm, Rocky Racoon and She came in through the bathroom window (desparation rhymes in search of a lyric) or Hello Goodbye and Obladee oblada (just really, really sad).
I know you can select your examples so as to endow your case with a certain spurious plausibility, and of course that's gone on here. Nevertheless, I think my basic point still stands. Even a terrific song like She's Leaving Home is gutted by the line about fun being the one thing that money can't buy, coming just at the end. Twenty four years old or not, he should have been able to do better than that. Mind you, we sometimes expect too much of our popular music heroes, it is a young person's game, and song writing benefits from life experience.
End of rant.