Paul McCartney Vs Brian Wilson : genius wreckage

Not really a "Vs" thread but I was reading recently an article about some McCartney album in the 70s that received harsh critics (like many ! sorry don't remember the reference) and there was this interesting idea that if Brian Wilson had came up with albums half as good (songwriting, ideas, production, etc) by that time, everybody would have been raving about the comeback of the genius from the darkness of depression.

Considering McCartney was also depressed following the Beatles split up and he took years to recover (never fully apparently, from various interviews and articles). Also the fact that he himself doesn't think much of his solo output compared to his Beatles's, being aware something was broken but he only kept going because that's all he could do.

Isn't it a bit unfair that, because he seemed to get better (all the time) than BW, he got much harder critics instead of people being glad he could still come up with something that was interesting, good or even great sometimes although, of course, far from his golden years ?
Certainly, the fact that he projected more and more the image of Mr annoying/positive/love/showy/professional didn't help...

And I'm not talking about commercial success since he managed very well in this area throughout the 70s and 80s.
Also, his latest albums may have this benevolent approach from the critics but apparently, it wasn't the case at all in the 70s.

nah, i don't think anyone's really duping themselves into liking any of their seventies material more than it deserves. maybe Love You gets a few kitschy shoutouts here and there, but Ram and BOTR get more boosting than that one. If this is 15 Big Ones vs Wings At The Speed Of Sound we're talking about, Macca just about edges over the mediocrity line.

I find Wilson through the 70s and 80s infinitely more interesting (and more damaged - which seems p obvious) than McCartney

Considering McCartney was also depressed following the Beatles split up and he took years to recover (never fully apparently, from various interviews and articles). Also the fact that he himself doesn't think much of his solo output compared to his Beatles's, being aware something was broken but he only kept going because that's all he could do.

I dunno – this is all speculative. It's news to me he spent the seventies depressed! I thought he spent it hi hi hi.

the problem here is that determining whether critics were fair to McCartney in comparison to Wilson requires that McCartney/Wilson and their respective outputs are somehow interchangeable or equivalent, and they aren't in any meaningful way.

Yeah, between the release of Pet Sounds and his first solo album (about 20 years), there were really only maybe 3 or 4 cumulative albums' worth of officially-released Brian Wilson material.

Oh I guess not depressed through the whole seventies but definitely in the early and then trying to do something/anything to recover (with much help from Linda and their kids).
but apparently he was much more broken and aware of his creativity never fully back than I thought.
There are some interviews from the 70s and 80s about this.
So I was just thinking maybe he wasn't judged with the same kindness as BW was and all his goofy, silly (and plain bad) stuff would have been better considered if they had been done by BW.
Like what if Macca had taken more drugs in the 60s and hadn't had Linda !

yeah, clearly not interchangeable at all. very different situations, output, personalities, etc.
that's really just an idea without much backing !

have you read reviews of those 70s Beach Boys albums? they are not kind. before his first proper Landy-helmed solo album BW was hardly judged kindly, it was more like he was pitied

this is p good I guess: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/love-you-19770505

Critical thinking has probably changed in the past decade - McCartney is now the "flawed hero" and Wilson is the golden oldies guy subject to diminishing returns. Neither of those storylines are true -- but then neither of those storylines have much weight either, because no one really cares about what the "music critic consensus" is anymore. For what it's worth, I thought Memory Almost Full and Lucky Old Sun were really, really strong records. And I still think music critics have no idea how to write about mental health issues.

Yeah the critics have definitely evolved regarding macca lately. But in the 70's and 80's it seems he was mainly considered an uncool joke.
Wilson seemed to always have a free pass.
Maybe it's just my own perception.
I love both but post 60's, I find macca's output considerably better (with major duds though).
And macca's latest stuff too (chaos being a favourite).
Most of wilson's solo stuff sounds quite bad to me (the production especially).

no one does wall-o-buzzing-synths like Wilson imo, the production on Love You and that first s/t are quite strange and engagin

The synths in T.I.'s "What You Know" always felt similar to me. I love that sound and I don't hear it enough.

haha ok there's a connection I hadn't drawn before but I totally hear it now that you mention it. Wilson was ahead of his time with the synth stuff imo - just aurally, the way *everything* is processed - moreso than any of Macca's 70s productions.

Basically agree w AlXTC from Paris, and think that a lot of this has to do w their personas, and the cultural roles of their (former) bands. The Beatles were always on top, always trendsetters, really good at being famous (ie no nervous breakdowns during the production of what was supposed to be their best records). The Beach Boys had huge hits obviously, but also were kind of underdog personas, like the American somewhat odd-savant yin to the Beatles' overachieving, working-class yang. As a solo artist, McCartney had to overcome ridiculously high expecations, like those of a returning sports champion into a new season, and had haters simply for having been so successful (and likewise, undoubtedly overexposed). For solo BW, it's almost like anything you can get is a bonus, and it's an unspoken rule that you encourage his efforts rather than criticize his failures. I find it conspicuous and hypocritical, and with each passing not-very-good BW solo album, realize how incredible someone like McCartney really is. PS I am also Eugene Landy.

Was listening to "IMagination" by Brian Wilson yesterday - so glossy and slick - it really brings in to sharp relief how bad his voice has been for the past 40 years - meanwhile Sir Paul has maintained his angelic muffelvox

I remember Wilson's SNL performance in the '70s being very cringe-worthy. (I think it was hosted by Jodie Foster, still a teenager then.) I'm not sure if his voice had physically soured though - it may have been his inability to sing the way he used to due to his mental fitness.

meanwhile Sir Paul has maintained his angelic muffelvox

You obviously haven't seen him perform in a long while.

Well, relative to Wilson's goose-link honk

McCartney sounded pretty good vocally up until the last decade or so

Macca just sounds old. Which is to be expected.