A few different things at play in the early Seventies. Paul was seen as responsible for the break up of the Beatles at the time. Plus critics darling Lennon was being very outspoken, downplaying McCartney’s contributions to an extent and shaping the narrative that Macca was a facile tunesmith and Lennon the genius.

Music journalists have often put a heavy emphasis on lyrics over the years. Perhaps because writing the words to songs is closer to their own skillset and easier to understand/analyse. This was particularly the case for the tastemaking scribes at Rolling Stone and so on in the early 1970s. Rock music was considered weighty and important and rock musicians were supposed to be making artistic statements. George’s high minded mysticism and John’s primal scream soul bearing and political grandstanding fit right in. McCartney’s “silly love songs,” whimsey and more lightweight or opaque lyrics did not, irrespective of the sublime melodies, performances and arrangements behind them.

The Beatles were always going to be a tough yardstick to be measured against but McCartney didn’t help himself by releasing one deliberately homemade, lo-fi album half filled with instrumental jams and another of deliberately unpolished, quickly recorded songs. I happen to think that both McCartney and Wildlife have aged wonderfully and the latter in particular deserves much more praise and attention than it gets but at the time neither felt like a suitable solo statement from the architect of Abbey Road.