Except Paul McCartney is considered as one of the best song writers of all time. There may be many musicians who can do the same on a technical level but even then he is a significant outlier.
> Except Paul McCartney is considered as one of the best song writers of all time.
This is a loaded observation, basically arguing "because all his songs sold well, he must be a significant outlier in songwriting." Similarly, Apple is considered one the best cell phone manufacturers of all time, or McDonald's is considered one of the best burger manufacturers of all time. Popularity does not equate to whether something is any good. And not all of McCartney's songs are the best songs of all time. Some of his notably terrible songs are still popular because he, himself, is famous (because he was a Beatle). One example is the Wing's song Jet, which is popular enough to still get radio play, yet when critically analyzed falls quite short of, say, Hey, Jude.
But my argument is not that Paul McCartney can't write good songs, only that it is ordinary that a musician can recall to perform music they have heard before in the same way most that read something impactful to them can more or less recall it verbatim.
In my opinion this is like criticising Picasso's paintings for not being anything close to as realistic as photos.
Fine, it's a valid opinion to dislike either for those reasons, but for many people it was, and is, art that's exciting in part because of its perfect non-perfection.
I think with lyrics most people don't give them a second thought and don't realise what the person is singing about. Most people can't even tell you which instrument is being used in a part of a song.
This is different to visual art - most people can play spot the difference no problem, but with audio most people are deaf to the details, and the lyrics!
Eg. My Sharona - most people don't realise it includes the lyric "I always get it up for the younger kind"....
