Why Paul McCartney’s Albums Were Destroyed By Critics
via via @hippiebeatles / Instagram
Paul McCartney’s solo career began under the enormous weight of his Beatles legacy. After being part of the most influential band in modern music history, any solo venture was bound to be compared—often unfairly—to the gold standard he helped create. Critics weren’t just reviewing his music; they were measuring it against a myth.
While other ex-Beatles were also under scrutiny, Paul received an exceptional amount of backlash. Some argue it’s because he was seen as the one who ended The Beatles, even though the story is far more complex. That resentment stuck, and many critics approached his post-Beatles work with a lens clouded by bias.
Adding to this pressure was the perception that John Lennon was the “serious” Beatle, the one with depth and edge. Critics tended to side with John’s raw, confessional style, making Paul’s melodic and often whimsical approach seem lightweight in comparison—even when it wasn’t.
View this post on Instagram
The Curse of Being Prolific
One of Paul McCartney’s greatest strengths—his prolific creativity—may have also been his downfall in the eyes of critics. After The Beatles, he had no Lennon to filter or challenge his ideas, and as a result, he released nearly everything he wrote. Without a firm editorial presence, his albums became mixed bags of brilliance and filler.
Albums like Ram and Band on the Run were later reassessed as classics, but at the time, they confused or disappointed many reviewers who expected every track to be groundbreaking. Instead, Paul delivered quirky experiments, soft rock ballads, and even children’s songs like “Mary Had a Little Lamb.” These tracks didn’t fit the mold critics had imposed on him.
The sheer volume of his output also meant there wasn’t enough space between releases for songs to mature or evolve. Unlike during the Beatles era, where songs were refined collaboratively, Paul was often working alone or leading his band Wings, pushing out albums at a relentless pace. Quality control suffered, and critics noticed.
View this post on Instagram
Critical Flops, Hidden Gems
Despite the negativity from critics, McCartney still managed to produce solid music that resonated with fans. Songs like “Maybe I’m Amazed,” “Live and Let Die,” and “Let ‘Em In” showed his ability to write memorable melodies and experiment with form. But too often, these gems were buried under albums that critics dismissed as inconsistent.
Take Back to the Egg, for instance—his 1979 album that was commercially successful but widely panned. Critics found it unfocused and strange, while fans appreciated its energy and ambition. Then came McCartney II in 1980, a synth-heavy, avant-garde departure that confused everyone at the time but has since gained cult status.
McCartney wasn’t afraid to take risks, but critics rarely gave him credit for it. He was boxed into expectations he didn’t always meet, especially when he explored unconventional sounds. His willingness to follow his muse, rather than trends or public demand, made him a target for reviewers looking for a neat, predictable narrative.
View this post on Instagram
The Burden of Being Paul
Beyond the music itself, Paul McCartney carried a burden that few artists ever experience: the public’s simultaneous admiration and resentment. People loved him as a Beatle but were quick to dismiss him as a solo artist. That tension made every misstep seem bigger than it really was.
There’s also the cultural tendency to romanticize tragic figures. John Lennon’s early death solidified his legend, while Paul, still very much alive, had to live through waves of criticism and changing public taste. His survival became a strange disadvantage—he was still producing music, and that made him easier to critique.
Ultimately, Paul McCartney’s solo journey is one of resilience. Despite the harsh reviews and sometimes justified criticisms, he never stopped creating. For every misfire, there’s a track or album that shines through. His career, much like his catalog, is full of contradictions—imperfect, ambitious, and undeniably his own.
